MA S TER 
NEGA  TIVE 

NO.  92-80599-25 


MICROFILMED  1992 
COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARIES/NEW  YORK 


as  part  of  the 
"Foundations  of  Western  Civilization  Preservation  Project" 


Funded  by  the 
NATIONAL  ENDOWMENT  FOR  THE  HUMANITIES 


Reproductions  may  not  be  made  without  permission  from 

Columbia  University  Library 


COPYRIGHT  STATEMENT 

The  copyright  law  of  the  United  States  -  Title  17,  United 
States  Code  --  concerns  the  making  of  photocopies  or  other 
reproductions  of  copyrighted  material... 

Columbia  University  Library  reserves  the  right  to  refuse  to 
accept  a  copy  order  if,  in  its  judgement,  fulfillment  of  the  order 
would  involve  violation  of  the  copyright  law. 


A  UTHOR : 


FRANK,  TENNEY 


TITLE: 


ATTRACTION  OF  MOOD 
IN  EARLY  LATIN 

PLACE: 

LANCASTER,  PA. 

DA  TE : 

1904 


t» 


COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARIES 
PRESERVATION  DEPARTMENT 


Master  Negative  U 


BiDuocR  APHic  MrrRnmRM  tarhft 


mmmmmmm^^utitm 


Original  Material  as  Filmed  -  Existing  Bibliographic  Record 


BK3/PR0D   Books        FUL/BIB    IMYCG92--B324a9 

Record  i  of  0   —  JRecord  BddBdi   today 


Acquisitions 


NYCG-PT 


DCF:? 
INT:? 


RTYP:a. 

CRC:  ? 
Rpr » 7 

REP:  ? 
DM: 


MOD;  ' 


BIO:? 
CPIz? 


RR 


FRMs 
SN.R; 
F I  C  5  ? 
FBI:? 
COL: 


ns  s 


ATC;; 
COW:??? 
J  L  C 
EHL  s 


«  T»  *■>  '?  '■> 


040 

inn  t 

245  10 


II:? 
GEM : 


Restrictions  on  Use: 


ID:MYCG?2-D32409 

CC:9iS68   BLTsaw 
CP:aau     L:eng 

PD: 1904/ 
OR:     POL: 
NWOIcNNC 

Frank  |,  Tenney , «  I dt a.76_t f  39 • 
Attraction  of  mood  in  early  iBtin- i  hT.mi  cy  of orm'.] , 

t .ancaster,  Pa»  ,  s  I  bPre^s  of  the  Mew  era  printing  company,-"  lcl9QA 

1  p-5  59  p.=jc24  cm. 

aC  fttt       f9|.<*l'. 


AD: 05 -08-92 
IJD:  05-08-92 


TECHNICAL  MICROFORM  DATA 


-»-> 


FILM     SIZE:__i_^ 
IMAGE  PLACEMENT:    lA 


REDUCTION     RATIO: 


//   -< 


IIA;   IB     IID 


>^7     />  C. 


DATE     FILMED:_i.r_tfX_ I 

HLMEDBY:    RESEARCH  PUBLICATIONS.  INC  WOODDRIDGE.  cf 


NITIALS 


BoE 


c 


Association  for  Information  and  Image  IManagement 

1100  Wayne  Avenue,  Suite  1100 
Silver  Spring.  Maryland  20910 

301/587-8202 


Centimeter 

12        3        4         5 

Mll|llllLl|imlll|illi|ilMMlmilim 


llli 


nil 


I  T  \ 


8 


I     I 


W 


llllMI 


TTJ 


m¥fV 


Inches 


9 

„1,1 


Mill 


10       11       12       13       14 

"'l""l""l '"l'"lllMll 


ITT 


T 


1.0 

|50 

m   II" 

lUku. 

1.4 

2.5 
2.2 

20 
1.8 

1.6 

I.I 

1.25 

15    mm 


MRNUFRCTURED  TO  fillM  STfiNDfiRDS 
BY  RPPLIED  IMRGE,    INC. 


^^ 


^ 


«b^ 


ATTRACTION  OF  MOOD 


IN  EARLY  LATIN 


TENNEY   FKANK 


Zbc  mnlversit?  of  Cbicago 


1904 


Ube  Tamvcrsitg  of  Cbicago 

FOCHDKB  BT  JOHM  D.  EOCKlTEIiEB 


ATTRACTIOF  OF  MOOD 
IN  EARLY  LATIN 


A  DISSERTATION 

Submitted  to  the  Faculty  of  the  Ghaduate  School  op  Akt^ 

AND  Literature  in  Candidacy  for  the  Degree 

of  Doctor  of  Philosophy 

(DEPARTMENT  OF  LATIN) 


BY 


TENNEY  FRANK 


niEM  6r 

"nm  Niw  MA  raiNTiNa  aomun 
1904 


ATTRACTION  OP  MOOD  IN  EARLY  LATIN. 


i 


INTEODUCTIOK 

Notwithstanding  the  great  activity  of  scholars  in  the  field  of 
Latin  syntax  during  the  last  half  century,  the  subject  of  attrac- 
tion of  mood  in  the  Latin  language  has  passed  almost  unnoticed. 
The  reason  is  not  that  the  subject  is  already  clearly  understood. 
On  the  contrary,  most  of  the  statements  in  regard  to  it  in  the 
handbooks  are,  at  least  in  part,  erroneous,  and  confessedly  are 
based  upon  very  meager  data.     Neither  is  it  a  matter  of  smaU 
importance;  for  at  few  points  does  fine  feeling  for  the  shades 
of  meaning  of  moods  more  affect  the  interpretation  of  a  Latin 
sentence  than  in  the  usages  of  this  construction.     Nevertheless 
It  has  been  slighted.     I  find  but  one  treatment  of  the  subject  that 
pretends  in  any  way  to  be  thoroughgoing.     Even  this  touches  a 
very  limited  field,  namely  a  part  of  Cicero;  does  not  get  com- 
plete data  from  this ;  makes  little  attempt  at  digesting  the  mate- 
rial gathered ;  and  uses  a  method  of  treatment  which  is  somewhat 
antiquated.     I  refer  to  the  program  of  Franz  Peters,»  published 
in    1861.     The   substance    of   his    treatise   may   be    found    in 
Draeger,*  whose  lists  are  as  full  and  valuable  as  any  yet  pub- 
lished on  the  subject.     Draeger's  examples  are  taken  mainly 
from  Cicero.     The  same  is  true  of  Kiihner's  examples.»     Ziemer* 
should  also  be  mentioned  for  some  suggestive  remarks  on  the 
subject 

Several  dissertations  upon  special  constructions  have  of  neces- 
sity touched  upon  the  subject  in  passing,  but  have  hardly  affected 
the  discussion  of  the  problem,  since  they  have  approached  it  only 


? 


'  De  attractione  quadam  temporum  ac  modorum  linimae  latinae 
Deutsch-Crone,  18«1. 

«  HiBtorische  Syntax  der  Lat.  Sprache,  I,  sec.  151,  2-5. 
»Lat.  Grammatik,  II,  2. 

•Junggrammatische  StreifzUge;  Colberg,  1883. 

1 


Progr., 


ATTEACTION   OF    MOOD   IN    EARLY   LATIN. 


from  tie  peiiit  of  view  of  their  special  topic.  Thus  Liibbert^ 
places  certain  cum-clauses  ill  Plautns  Tinder  the  category  of  at- 
traction. Elste,^  Kichardson'  and  Boettger*  explain  certain 
examples  of  the  subjunctive  with  dum  as  due  to  the  same  influ- 
ence. Schubert,*  Lange®  and  Rodenbuscl^  should  also  be  men- 
tioned as  having  touched  the  subject  incidentally,  the  latter  two 
at  least  with  some  insight.  The  lists  of  Holtze,®  which  are  sup- 
posed to  cover  the  field  of  Early  Latin,  are  not  half  complete,  con- 
stantly betray  a  lack  of  understanding  of  Early  Latin  usage,  and 
make  no  analysis  of  the  material.  Nevertheless  they  have  been 
of  value  as  presenting  the  largest  collection  of  such  niaterial  from 
that  important  period.  To  all  of  the  above  I  have  given  due 
credit  where  they  have  been  found  serviceable. 

My  attention  was  first  called  to  this  subject  by  Professor  Hale, 
who  in  several  of  his  works  has  thrown  new  light  upon  the  obscure 
problem.  Keferences  to  these  will  be  found  in  the  body  of  this 
treatise,  in  which  it  will  become  apparent  how  great  is  my  indebt- 
edness to  him,  not  only  for  specific  suggestions,  but  also  for  my 
point  of  view,  method,  and  even  grammatical  nomenclature  and 
classification.  In  saying  this,  however,  I  do  not  wish  to  be  under- 
stood as  implying  that  Professor  Hale  agrees  with  me  in  the  Inter- 
pretation of  every  example,  nor  in  all  of  my  reasoning. 

As  regards  my  way  of  approaching  the  subject,  it  may  be  said 
that,  after  working  for  a  considerable  time  over  the  whole  range 
of  Latin  literature,  I  discovered  that  I  was  dealing  with  a  chang- 
ing construction,  and  that,  therefore,  a  historical  treatment  was 
the  only  logical  one.  Furthermore,  it  became  apparent  that  the 
origins  of  tiie  use  of  the  subjunctive  by  attraction  are  not  to  be 
looked  for  in  the  language  of  artistic  prose,  with  its  various  con- 
scious artifices;  for  the  construction  appears  before  the  time  of 
such  writing,  and  in  simpler  form.     On  the  other  hand,  since  the 

iDie  Syntax  von  Quom,  1870,  cf.  p.  125  if. 

*  De  Dum  Particulae  Usu  Plautino,  1882. 

»De  Dum  Particulae  apud  Prise.  Scr.  Lat.,  1886. 

♦  De  Dum  Particulae  Uau  apud  Terentium  et  in  Rel.  Trag.  et  Com.,  1887. 
>Zum  Gebrauch  der  Temporalconjunktionen  bei  Plautus,  1881. 

•De  Sententiarum  Temporalium  apud  Prise.  Ser.  Lat.  Syntaxi,  1878. 
'De  Temporum  Usu  Plautino,  1888. 

•Syntaxis  Prise.  Scr.  Lat.,  1861;  and  Syntaxis  Frag.  Scaen.  Poet  Rom., 
1882. 


INTBODUCTION.  3 

construction,  in  the  very  nature  of  the  case,  belongs  to  hypotaxis 
and  a  fairly  well  developed  complex  sentence,  we  need  not  become 
involved  in  the  mists  of  parataxis.     Early  Latin,  as  we  have  it, 
may  therefore  confidently  be  called  on  to  explain  the  beginnings. 
I  have  accordingly  tried  to  make  a  thorough  survey  of  Early 
Latin  down  to  Lucretius.     From  the  point  of  view  thus  gained 
I  propose  in  a  second  paper  to  sketch  the  later  usage  of  the  con- 
struction.    The  so-called  construction  of  "  attraction  by  the  infini- 
tive "  has  some  things  in  common  with  the  one  here  treated,  but 
since  the  data  offered  by  early  Latin  are  too  meager  to  ensure  safe 
generalization,  I  propose  to  postpone  its  discussion  to  a  later  paper 
in  which  I  intend  to  use  statistics  gathered  from  classical  authors 
as  well.     The  field  covered  by  this   paper  includes  Plautus,^ 
Terence,  Cato,  the  early  dramatic  fragments,  which  are  found  in 
Eibbeck's^  collection,  and  the  remaining  fragments  of  the  early 
Roman  poets,  which  are  found  in  the  sixth  volume  of  Baehrens'* 
collection.     I  have,  with  few  exceptions,  adopted  the  text  as  given 
in  the  editions  named.     The  lists  of  examples  being  large,  the 
errors  are  likely  to  balance  one  another.     On  the  other  hand,  the 
discussion  of  all  examples  for  which  the  manuscript  readings  vary 
would  swell  the  work  to  impossible  limits. 

My  treatment  falls  under  two  heads:  (1)  the  sources  of  the  con- 
struction; (2)  the  uses*  of  the  construction. 

>  I  have  used  the  following  editions:  for  Plautus,  that  of  Gotz  and  SchSll, 
Leipzig,  1893-1898;  for  Terence,  that  of  Dziatzko,  Leipzig,  1884;  for  Cato'g 
Agri  Cultura,  that  of  Keil,  Leipzig,  1894;  for  the  fragments  of  Cato,  that  of 
Jordan,  Leipzig,  1860. 

«  Scaenicae  Romanorum  Poesis  Fragmenta,  Leipzig,  1896-7. 

»  Poetae  Latini  Minores,  VI,  Leipzig,  1885. 

*I  regret  to  say  that  I  have  not  been  able  to  avail  myself  of  a  study  upon 
the  same  subject  which  was  announced  after  my  paper  had  gone  to  print. 
I  refer  to  the  paper  of  F.  Antoine  ( L' Attraction  modale  en  Latin,  Melanges 
Boissier,  Paris,  Fontemoing).  Judging  by  the  accurate  and  sane  work  of 
that  scholar,  I  feel  that  the  loss  to  my  study  must  be  great  indeed;  and  I 
can  only  make  it  good  by  referring  the  reader  to  his  work  which  may  sup- 
plement and  correct  the  views  expressed  by  mine. 


CHAPTER  I. 
The  Soubces  of  the  Consteuction. 

A  number  of  years  ago  Professor  Hale  pointed  out  the  way  in 
which  the  origins  of  the  construction  now  under  examination  must 
be  studied.  He  says  in  his  *  Sequence  of  Tenses '  (American 
Journal  of  Philology^  VIII  [1888],  1,  p.  54;  and  American  Jour- 
nal of  Philology,  IX  [1889],  2,  pp.  175-6):  "In  complex  sen- 
tences  made  up  of  a  main  sentence  with  subjunctive  verb  and  one 
or  more  subordinate  sentences,  the  modal  feeling  in  the  speaker's 
mind  which  expresses  itself  in  the  main  sentence  is,  in  the  nature 
of  things,  very  likely  to  continue  in  the  speaker's  mind  in  the 
subordinated  sentence  or  sentences,  either  quite  unchanged  or  but 
slightly  shaded.  If,  for  example,  I  say  in  Latin,  '  Let  him  send 
whom  he  will,'  mittat  quern  velit,  the  mood  in  vellt  is  not  a  case 
of  '  attraction '  or  '  assimilation  *  at  all.  Velit  is  as  much  a 
jussive  as  mittat  is.  The  meaning  is,  *  Let  him  choose  his  man, 
and  send  that  man  ' ;  or,  in  older  English,  *  Choose  he  his  man  and 
send  him.'  In  sei  ques  esent  quel  sibei  deicerent  necesus  ese 
Bacanal  habere  (C.  L  L.,  I,  196),  the  deicerent  is  as  much  a 
future  condition  (=sei  ques  deicerent)  as  esent  is."  Again, 
"  the  frequent  recurrence  of  such  examples  gives  rise  to  the  occa- 
sional use  of  a  dependent  subjunctive  with  only  a  formal  likeness 
to  the  main  subjunctive,  and  no  true  modal  feeling."  Later  he 
reiterates  the  statement  in  a  paper  on  the  Anticipatory  Sub- 
junctive* (p.  63,  footnote). 

This  wording  implies,  of  course,  that  the  construction  in  ques- 
tion is  a  thing  brought  about  and  developed.  As  for  Professor 
Hale's  interpretation  of  the  mood  of  velit  and  deicerent,  there  can 
be  no  dispute,  and  it  is  my  belief  that,  in  the  other  main  divi- 
sions of  the  subjunctive  also,  a  great  number  of  the  cases  usually 
treated  as  examples  of  attraction  are  to  be  interpreted  in  the  same 

» University  of  Chicago  Press,  1894.  Reprinted  in  Studies  in  Classical 
Philology  of  the  University  of  Chicago,  Vol.  I,  1895. 


THE    SOUECES   OF   THE   CONSTEUCTION.  6 

way ;  and  that  these  must  be  distinguished  from  those  which  are 
in  reality  due  to  the  habit  of  attraction  pure  and  simple.  The 
distinction  might  well  be  expressed  in  the  terms  of  Professor 
Hale,  who  speaks  of  the  mood  of  "  like  feeling "  and  that  of 
"  formal  likeness."^ 

We  are  to  seek,  then,  for  combinations  in  which  the  modal  feel- 
ing expressed  by  the  main  verb  may  naturally  cast  its  shadow 
over  the  subjunctive  clause.  Obviously,  there  would  be  a  lim- 
ited number  of  conditions  under  which  this  is  possible. 

The  conditions  are  favorable  when  both  the  verbs  (main  and 
subordinate)  are  in  the  same  grammatical  tense,  and  are  placed  in 
the  same  actual  time-sphere.  Such  a  state  of  affairs  may  be  illus- 
trated by  the  examples  above,  or  by  Aul.  491,  quo  lubeant,  nubant, 
'•  let  them  marry  where  they  please,"  i.  e.,  "  let  them  choose  their 
place,  and  marry  there." 

These  clauses  occur  freely  in  dependence  upon  subjunctives  of 
'^  volition,"  "  wish,"  "  permission  "  and  the  like.     I  add  further 
illustrations : 
With  a  subjunctive  of  permission: 

Bacch.  656,  furetur  quod  queat,  "  let  him  steal  what  he  can  " 
("what  he  shall  be  able  to  steal  "). 
With  a  subjunctive  of  wish : 

Hec.  197,  di  uortant  bene  quod  agas,  "  May  the  gods  further 
what  you  do  "  ("  shall  do  "). 
With  a  substantive  volitive  clause : 

Bacch.  674,  occasio  .  .  .  fuit  .  .  .  ut  quantum  uelles  tantum 
sumeres,  "there  was  opportunity  to  take  as  much  as  you 
wished  "  ("  as  much  as  you  should  wish  "). 
The  conditions  are  less  favorable  when  the  subjunctive  verb, 
though  in  the  same  grammatical  tense,  is  not  in  the  same  time- 
sphere  as  that  of  the  main  clause.     An  example  may  be  seen  in 
Cas.  252,  iam  domuisti  animum  .  .  .  ut,  quod  uir  uelit  fieri,  id 
facias  ?  '^  have  you  brought  your  mind  to  do  (i.  e.,  will  you  do  ?) 
that  which  your  husband  desires  ?  " 

Between  the  more  favorable  conditions  and  the  less  favorable 
lie  the  conditions  in  which  it  is  impossible  to  tell  from  the  con- 
text whether  the  subordinate  verb  is  in  the  same  time-sphere  with 
» A.  J.  p.,  Vol.  IX,  p.  176. 


e 


ATTRACTION   OF   MOOD   IN   EARLY   LATIN. 


the  main  verb,  or,  though  grammaticallj  in  the  same  tense,  is 
not  in  the  same  time-sphere, — or,  to  state  the  matter  in  another 
way,  the  conditions  in  which  either  relation  is  reasonable,  and 
there  is  nothing  to  determine  which  is  meant.  Such  a  state  of 
things  may  be  seen  in  Epid.  283,  iam  igitur  amota  ei  fuerit  omnis 
consultatio  nuptiarum,  ne  grauetur  quod  uelis,  "  dismiss  at  once 
then  the  whole  question  of  marriage,  lest  he  shall  begrudge  you 
what  you  wish."  Either  "  wish  "  or  "  shall  wish  "  is  here  rea- 
sonable, and  nothing  in  the  context  bars  either  meaning.  Such 
combinations  formed  a  bridge  from  the  use  of  the  subjunctive  of 
"  like  feeling "  to  the  use  of  the  subjunctive  of  "  formal  like- 
ness "  in  the  dependent  clause,  and  thus  carried  the  mood  over 
from  its  original  domain  in  the  former  field  to  a  new  domain  in 
the  latter. 

Distinctly  unfavorable  are  the  conditions  when  there  is  a  shift 
in  tense  as  well  as  in  time-sphere,  as  when  a  verb  in  the  past 
depends  grammatically  upon  a  future  verb  of  willing  or  wishing, 
as  in  Cas.  503,  ut  quod  mandaui  curet,  "  that  he  may  execute  the 
commissions  which  I  have  given";  or,  to  take  a  subjunctive,  in 
Kud.  1243,  ut  cum  maiore  dote  abeat  quam  aduenerit,  "  that  she 
may  depart  with  a  larger  dowry  than  she  brought  with  her." 
Here  aduenerit,  a  verb  of  past  time,  could  not  share  in  the  future 
volitive  idea  expressed  by  the  mood  and  tense  of  aheat.  In  sen- 
tences of  this  type,  then,  is  found  the  extreme  of  the  fully  devel- 
oped habit  of  attraction. 

With  this  preliminary  explanation,  we  pass  to  an  enumeration 
and  discussion  of  the  various  kinds  of  subjunctives  after  which 
the  verb  of  the  dependent  clause  is  at  times  found  to  contain  the 
same  modal  feeling  as  that  of  the  main  clause  ("  subjunctive  of 
like  feeling"). 

I  find  these  kinds  to  be  as  follows:^ 


1.  Volitive  Subjunctive 


Jussive  and  Permissive. 

"  Deliberative "    and    its    extensions 

(Subjunctive  of   Surprise  or  In- 

dignation). 
Dependent  Volitive. 

1  The  order  in  this  list  is  that  of  the  treatment  which  follows,  and  is  de- 
termined by  practical  considerations  of  exposition. 


THE   SOURCES   OF   THE   CONSTRUCTION.  7 

2.  Optative  Subjunctive — independent  and  dependent. 

3.  Subjunctive  of  Obligation  or  Propriety. 

4.  Anticipatory  Subjunctive,  for  the  present  or  the  past  (pres- 
ent-future or  past-future). 

5.  Conditional  Subjunctive. 

6.  Subjunctive  of  Ideal  Certainty  (as  in  Subjunctive  Conclu- 
sions). 

7.  Subjunctive  in  Indirect  Questions. 

A. 

Subjunctives  depending  upon  subjunctives  with  simple  volitive 
or  optative  force  have  been  sufficiently  treated  above  (pp.  5-6). 

o. 
The  clauses  which  depend  upon  a  subjunctive  of  "surprise 
or    indignation,"    though    of   volitive    ("deliberative")    origin, 
may  well  be  treated  in  a  separate  paragraph,  since  they  show 
some  important  peculiarities.     Through  the  very  nature  of  this 
construction,  it  matters  little  whether  the  main  and  the  depend- 
ent verbs  are  in  the  same  time-sphere;  for  "surprise  or  indignation 
is  expressed  as  readily  at  an  act  that  took  place  in  the  past  as  at 
one  of  the  present  time.     Ordinarily,  in  this  group,  it  is  easy  to 
tell  from  the  context  whether  the  secondary  verb  has  naturally 
the  feeling  of  the  main  verb.     The  following  sentence  affords  a 
good  illustration  of  this  class :  Phorm.  970-3,  ubi  quae  lubitum 
fuerit  peregre  feceris  neque  huius  sis  ueritus  feminae  primariae, 
.  .  .  uenias  nunc  precibus  lautum  peccatum  tuomi 
^  The  mood  of  uenias  expresses  the  speaker's  (feigned)  indigna- 
tion.    That  same  feeling  extends,*  it  seems  to  me,  through  feceris, 
and  sis  ueritus,  since  these  dwell  upon  the  very  acts  which  caused 
the  anger.     It  probably  does  not  extend  into  the  explanatory 
clause  quae  lubitum  fuerit,  or,  if  it  does,  it  extends  with  far  less 
force.     I  should  say  that  feceris  and  sis  ueritus  are  in  the  sub- 
junctive for  the  same  reason  that  uenias  is,  but  that  lubitum  fuerit 

1  In  the  following  examples,  in  which  the  main  verbs  are  in  the  indicative, 
I  should  prefer  to  interpret  the  dependent  subjunctives  as  due  to  indignation 
and  surprise  rather  than  to  an  adversative  feeling. 

Pers.  76,  sumne  ego  stultua  qui  rem  euro  publicam  uhi  aint  magistratus 
quos  curare  oporteat! 


8 


ATTRACTION   OF    MOOD   IN    EARLY    LATIN. 


is  a  case  of  attraction.  This  statement  may  become  clearer  if  we 
compare  the  following  sentence,  in  which  the  explanatory  clause, 
which  is  much  like  the  one  just  discussed,  is  left  in  the  indica- 
tive: 

Men.  560,  Egone  hie  me  patiar  in  matrimonio 

Ubi  uir  compilet  clanculum  quicquid  domist? 

In  the  following  the  subordinate  verbs  are,  if  my  interpretation 
is  right,  in  the  subjunctive,  not  by  mechanical  attraction,  but 

Pseud.  184,  Eo  uost  uostros  panticesque  adeo  madefactatis  quom  ego  aim 
hie  siccus!  Here  Lange  (De  Sententiarum  Temporalium  apud  Prise.  Scr.  Lat. 
Syntaxi,  p.  45)  needlessly  proposes  to  emend  madefactatis  to  madefaciatiSf  in 
order  to  get  a  raison  d'etre  for  tlie  mood  of  aim. 

Capt.  892,  dubium  habebis  etiam,  sanete  quom  ego  iurem  tibi! 

In  the  first  of  these  examples  the  force  is  not  felt  with  such  strength,  at  the 
moment  when  sum  and  euro  are  uttered,  as  to  call  for  the  subjunctive ;  but  the 
speaker's  indignation  rises  as  he  proceeds,  and  finds  full  expression  in  sint  and 
oporteat,  I  would  add  to  this  list  Ad.  166,  noui  ego  uostra  haec  "  nollem 
factum,  dabitur  ius  iurandum,  indignum  te  esse  iniuria  hac,"  indignis  quom 
egomet  aim  acceptua  modis.  The  tone  of  the  last  clearly  is  "  to  think  of 
coming  i^ith  such  excuses,  after  I  have  been  aituaed  in  this  way ! "  Lange  ( ibid., 
p.  43)  goes  far  afield  in  saying  that  the  mood  of  the  cum-clause  is  due  to  its 
dependence  upon  the  infinitive,  and  Liibbert  (Die  Syntax  von  Quom,  p.  140) 
makes  it  one  of  the  two  clauses  in  Terence  which  are  in  this  mood  because 
of  a  causal  quom.  If  we  are  right  in  recognizing  this  force  in  the  dependent 
temporal  clauses  above  (with  a  main  verb  in  the  indicative),  we  shall  also 
recognize  it  when  a  subjunctive  clause  with  ubi  or  cum  is  found  in  dependence 
upon  a  subjunctive;  for  the  existence  of  such  clauses  after  an  indicative  proves 
that  those  which  we  find  after  a  subjunctive  are  not  necessarily  in  that  mood 
because  of  attraction,  but  possibly  by  their  own  inherent  force.  I  should  like- 
wise suggest  that  many  of  the  so-called  causal  and  adversative  gui-clauses  in 
Plautus  and  Terence  should  rather  be  explained  as  due  to  the  presence  of  this 
other  force.  For,  if  we  are  right  in  recognizing  the  subjunctive  of  surprise 
or  indignation  after  a  cum  (cf.  Bacch.  1192,  Egon  quom  haec  cum  illo  accubet 
inapectem^,)  and  ubi  (Epid.  588,  Non  patrem  ego  te  nominem  ubi  tu  tuam  me 
appellea  filiam?),  we  should  naturally  do  so  after  qui  in  clauses  of  the  same 
nature,  as  in  Pers.  27,  deisne  aduorser  quasi  Titani,  cum  eis  belligerem, 
quibus  sat  esse  non  queaml  and  in  Rud.  1244,  Egone  ut  quod  ad  me  allatum 
esse  alienum  aciam  celeml  Note  how  closely,  in  the  two  examples  following, 
the  qui-clause  and  the  cum-clause  correspond:  M.  G.  964,  Vah,  egone  ut  ad 
te  ab  libertina  esse  auderem  internuntius,  qui  ingenuis  satis  responsare 
nequeaal    Most.  896,  Tibi  obtemperem  quom  tu  mihi  nequeasl 

I  do  not  wish  to  be  understood  as  giving  my  assent  to  the  view  adopted 
by  Dittmar,  Lateinische  Modus-Lehre,  a  view  credited  to  Luchs  by 
Guthmann  (Uber  eine  Art  unwilliger  Fragen,  Niimberg,  1891,  p.  1;  see  also 
Stolz-Schmalz  Gram.  [1900]  p.  370),  that  this  force  was  the  origin  of  the  sub- 
junctive in  qui-causal  clauses.    An  examination  of  all  the  data  will  disprove  the 


THE    SOUECES   OF   THE   CONSTRUCTION. 


9 


because  of  their  own  inherent  force  of  surprise,  indignation,  or 
the  like.  Thus,  the  first  of  the  following  examples  is  practically 
equal  to:  Haec  cum  illo  accubet,  et  ego  inspectem!  cf.  Cic.  Cat. 
2,  8,  18,  tu  rebus  omnibus  copiosm  m,  et  dubites!  "  You  a  man 
provided  with  everything,— and  you  hesitate !  "  * 
With  quom: 

Bacch.  1192,  Egon,  quom  haec  cum  illo  accubet,  inspectem? 

Most  896,  Tibi  obtemperem,  quom  tu  mihi  nequeas? 

Heaut.  413-15,  Verum  quom  uideam  miserum  hunc  tarn  ex- 

cruciarier  eius  abitu,  celem  tam  insperatum  gaudium  quom 

ilh  pericli  nil  ex  indicio  siet  ? 

Hec.  341,  Non  uisam  uxorem  Pamphili,  quom  in  proximo  hie 
sit  aegra  ? 

Andr.  944,  Egon  huius  memoriam  patiar  meae  uoluptati  oh- 

stare,  quom  ego  possim  in  hac  re  medicari  mihi ! 
Bacch.  285,  Adeon  me  fuisse  fungum  ut  qui  illi  crederem, 

Quom  mi  ipsum  nomen  eius  Archidemides 
Clamaret  dempturum  esse! 

With  ubi  temporal: 

Epid.  588,  Non  patrem  te  nominem,  ubi  tu  tuam  me  appelles 
filiam  ? 

Men.  560-1,  Egone  hie  me  patiar  in  matrimonio, 

Ubi  uir  compilet  clanculum  quidquid  domist 

Atque  ea  ad  amicam  deferat? 
Ubi  local: 

Bacch.  1190,  Egon,  ubi  filius  corrumpatur  mens,  ibi  potem? 
I  should  add  to  this  list,  for  reasons  given  in  the  footnote  (p. 

theory.  One  of  the  numerous  weaknesses  in  Dittmar's  general  procedure  lies  in 
the  fact  that  his  theories  are  bolstered  up  by  a  few  cleverly  chosen  examples 
which  are  interpreted  to  suit  the  theory  in  question.  As  for  the  interpreta- 
tion  of  the  cum-clauses  given  at  the  beginning  of  this  note,  I  am  well  aware 
of  the  fact  that  it  is  by  no  means  certain.  It  may  be  that  all  of  the  sub- 
junctives with  cum  in  Plautus  and  Terence  (outside  of  cases  of  attraction 
or  indirect  discourse)  are  due  to  unconscious  corruption  on  the  part  of  copy- 
ists who  were  following  the  usage  of  their  own  times.  Cf.  Hale,  Cum-Construc- 
tions,  p.  211.     Ubi  aint  of  Pers.  76  may  likewise  be  adversative. 

»  This  is  classed  in  the  Hale-Buck  Grammar,  §  503,  as  illustrating  the  extreme 
development  from  the  volitive  question.  It  is  ordinarily  classed  as  a  Potential 
subjunctive. 


10 


ATTEACTION    OF    MOOD   IN   EAELT   LATIN. 


8),  the  qui  causal-adversative  clauses  which  show  the  same  force. 
Cf.  Asin.  838, 

An  tu  me  tristem  putas? 

Putem  ego  quern  uideam  aeque  esse  raaestum  ut  quasi  dies  si 

dicta  sit  ? 

C. 

Akin  to  the  subjunctive  of  indignation  in  feeling,  though  of 
a  different  origin,^  is  that  which  expresses  "  obligation  or  pro- 
priety/' and  I  accordingly  treat  it  next.  In  Hec.  658,  nunc, 
quom  eius  alienum  a  me  esse  animum  sentiam,  .  .  .  quam  ob 
rem  redducam?  the  main  verb  asks  a  question  of  propriety  in  a 
tone  of  surprise,  which  latter  feeling  has  full  possession  of  the 
subordinate  verb  and  makes  it  subjunctive.  The  same  is  true  in 
Eun.  566,  quid  ego  eius  tibi  nunc  faciem  praedicem  aut  laudem, 
Antipho,  quom  ipsus  me  noins  quam  elegans  formarum  spectator 
siem  ? 

Again,  I  should  add  to  this  list  many  of  the  so-called  qui-causal 
clauses  which  may  be  interpreted  as  expressing  the  same  feeling, 
and  depend  upon  verbs  in  the  subjunctive  of  propriety.  So,  for 
instance,  I  do  not  see  why  subjimctives  like  the  following,  with 
qui,  should  be  placed  in  a  different  class  from  those  just  cited 
with  quom: 

M.  G.  426,  Quin  ego  hoc  rogem  quod  nesciam ! 

M.  G.  556,  Vidi:  cur  negem  qu4)d  uiderim! 

Amph.  434,  Quid  ego  ni  negem  qui  egomet  siem! 
The  number  of  these  examples  in  Plautus  and  Terence  is  large. 

There  are  also  certain  subordinate  clauses  depending  upon  verbs 
like  mereo,  which  belong  to  this  group.  Thus  in  Men.  1067, 
non  edepol  ita  promeruisti  de  me  ut  pigeat  quae  uelis,  "  you  have 
deserved  better  of  me  than  that  you  should  express  a  wish  and 
be  disappointed,"  I  should  say  that  the  mood  of  uelis  is  not  due 
to  attraction,  but  conveys  the  idea  of  propriety  quite  as  clearly 
as  pigeat  does.  The  feeling  of  remonstrance  is  also  strong  in  the 
cum-clauses  of  the  following,  in  which  ut  siet  must  be  classed  as 
a  substantive  clause  of  propriety  (I  should  not,  with  Liibbert,  p. 
81,  take  the  Subjunctives  with  cum  as  due  to  mechanical  attrac- 
tion) : 

iCf.  Hale,  Proceedings  Am.  Phil.  As.,  Vol.  32  [1901],  p.  120. 


THE    SOURCES   OF    THE    CONSTRUCTION. 


11 


Bacch.  140-2, 

Non  par  uidetur  neque  sit  consentaneum, 
Quom  haec  intus  intus  sit  et  cum  amica  accuhet, 
Qjwmque  osculetur  et  conuiuae  alii  accuhent, 
Praesentibus  illis  paedagogus  una  ut  siet. 

In  none  of  the  above,  then,  is  the  dependent  clause  mechanically 
attracted.  It  may  be  said  to  be  in  the  subjunctive  because  it  is 
within  the  penumbra  of  the  subjunctive  shadow  extended  by  the 
main  verb.  And  it  seems  highly  probable  that  the  mechanical 
habit  of  assimilation  was  helped  on  by  the  occurrence  of  a  great 
number  of  such  instances. 


The  part  played  by  the  anticipatory  subjunctive*  is  probably 
the  most  important  of  all  in  the  creation  of  this  construction. 
In  the  first  place,  all  futures,  when  thrown  into  the  past,  of  neces- 
sity are  expressed  by  the  subjunctive.^ 

Epid.  501,  Conducta  ueni  ut  fidibus  cantarem  seni  dum  rem 
diuinam  faceret. 
In  which  faceret  represents  a  future  dum  faciet  projected  into  the 
past.     Contrast : 

Epid.  47,  Ipse  mandauit  .  .  .  ut  fidicina  quam  am/ibai  eme- 
retur  sibi, 
in  which  amahat  represents  a  present  amat  thrown  into  past  dis- 
course.    Other  examples  of  the  past  future  are: 

» The  existence  of  such  a  type  of  the  Subjunctive  is  now  coming  to  be  gen- 
erally recognized.      See  Hale's  "The  Sequence  of  Tenses"  A.  J.   P.,  VIII 

(1887)  p.  48  (act  "in  view");  Rodenbusch,  De  Temporum  Usu  Plautino, 
1888;  Sonnenschein,  CI.  Rev.,  vol.  VII,  Feb.  (1893) ;  Hale,  CI.  Rev.  vol.  VIII, 
April    (1894),   and   Anticipatory    Subjunctive,    1894;    Schmalz,   Lat.    Gram. 

(1900)  p.  370;  Blase,  Hist.  Lat.  Gram.  (1903)  III,  p.  124. 

«  See  the  Hale-Buck  Latin  Grammar,  §  508-9,  and  Hale's  Anticipatory  Sub- 
junctive, p.  64,  footnote.  It  is  customary,  of  course,  to  treat  the  mood  in 
such  cases  as  due  to  attraction,  or,  if  after  verbs  "  sentiendi  et  declarandi," 
as  due  to  indirectness  of  discourse.  So  Liibbert  treats  Amph.  128,  and  Bacch. 
955  (cf.  pp.  86  and  93).  Holtze's  treatment  is  similar.  See  pp.  192-5 
passim.  It  must  be  understood,  however,  that  the  verbs  in  such  cases  could 
not  have  been  in  the  indicative,  and  therefore  it  is  impossible  to  say  that  they 
have  been  attracted.  They  are,  as  explained  in  the  Supplement  to  the  Hale- 
Buck  Grammar,  not  due  to  the  habit  of  using  the  subjunctive,  but  factors 
contributing  to  bring  about  that  habit. 


12 


ATTRACTION   OF    MOOD   IN*   EAKLY   LATIN. 


Pseud.  57,  Ea  causa  miles  hie  reliquit  symbolum  .  .  . 

ut  qui  hue  adferret  eius  similem  symbolum 

cum  eo  simul  me  mitteret. 
Amph.  128,  ut  ne  qui  essem  familiares  quaererent 

uorsari  crebro  hie  quom  uiderent  me  domi. 

Cf.  also  Epid.  316,  faceret;  Epid.  356,  redisses;  Epid.  386,  in- 
spexissent;  Amph.  83-4,  mandasset,  fecisset;  Amph.  225,  uicti 
sint;  Bacch.  955,  scinderetur;  Trin.  1144,  darem;  314,  esset; 
Adel.  109,  eiecisset;  Ilec.  545,  egissem;  Cure.  346,  attulisset. 

It  is  not  a  great  step  from  sentences  like  these  to  the  following, 
in  which  one  cannot  be  positive  whether  the  original  verb  of  the 
dependent  clause  was  a  future  or  a  present:  Bacch.  550,  ille 
.  •  .  accuratum  habuit  quod  posset  mali  faceret  in  me.  Cf.  554. 
Here  posset  could  stand  for  either  potero  or  possum.  From  such 
examples  the  step  is  short  to  the  use  of  the  imperfect  subjunctive 
for  a  dependent  clause  thrown  from  the  present  into  the  past. 
Cf.  Merc.  152,  me  rupi  causa  currendo  tua  ut  quae  scirem  scire 
actutum  tibi  liceret ;  Bacch.  788,  orabat  quod  istic  esset  scriptum 
ut  fieret.  To  such  cases  it  is  correct  to  apply  the  word  attraction, 
since  the  verbs  could  be  in  the  indicative  if  emphasis  required  it. 
Cf.  Eun.  574,  (ut)  .  .  .  essem  una  quacum  cupiebam. 

In  the  second  place,  our  study  of  early  Latin  seems  to  bear  out 
the  belief  of  Professor  Hale*  that  "  in  such  a  case  as  di  tibi  dent 
quaequomque  optes  (*  the  gods  grant  you  whatever  your  heart 
shall  wish '),  Plant.,  As.  44,  we  have  the  descendant  of  an  orig- 
inal determinative  anticipatory  clause."  "  I  have  long  believed," 
Professor  Hale  says,^  "  that  the  anticipatory  subjunctive  supplies 
a  large  factor  to  the  development  of  this  construction  (attraction). 
Especially  in  Plautus  and  Terence,  a  considerable  proportion  of 
the  subjunctives  of  *  assimilation  '  after  primary  tenses  seem  easily 
to  be  accounted  for  as  simply  anticipatory,  if  we  assume  that  the 
anticipatory  power  still  remained  to  the  mood  at  that  time.  This 
has  been  shown  to  be  the  case  for  Terence,  in  a  paper  written  for 
the  degree  of  A.B.  by  Mr.  F.  O.  Bates,  a  student  of  mine  at  Cor- 
nell, in  the  year  1891-2." 


1  Antic.  Subj.,  p.  63,  footnote. 
*Ibid.,  p.  64,  footnote. 


THE   SOUECES   OP   THE   CONSTETTCTION. 


13 


An  examination  of  the  expressions  of  this  kind  in  early  Latin 
certainly  gives  strength  to  the  belief  that  the  anticipatory  power 
still  persisted  in  them,  though  the  Roman  grammarians,  like  the 
modern,  may  have  lost  sight  of  the  origin  and  referred  the  mode 
to  "  attraction."     The  case  of  dum,  meaning  "  while  "  and  "  as 
long  as  "  and  pointing  to  the  future,  furnishes  a  good  illustration. 
Whenever  its  clause  is  subjunctive  in  early  Latin  and  depends 
upon  a  subjunctive,  it  is  the  practice  to  say  that  the  mood  is  due 
to  attraction.     In  this  way  Boettger  (De  Dum  Particulae  Usu, 
etc,  p.  20)  explains  dum-clauses  in  the  following:   habet  haec  ei 
quod  dum  uiuat  usque  ad  aurem  obganniat,  Phorm.  1030 ;  ita  uelim 
me  promerentem  ames,  dum  uiuas,  mi  pater,  ut  me  .  .  .  dolet? 
Adel.  681 ;  and  ut  dum  uiuat  meminerit  semper  mei,  Heaut  951. 
In  the  same  way  the  dum-clauses  in  the  following  are  explained 
by  Elste  (De  Dum  Particulae  Usu  Plautino,  p.  26) :  quid  dotis? 
egone;  ut  semper,  dum  uiuat,  me  alat.  Cure.  664;  neu  sessum 
ducat,  dum  histrio  in  scaena  siet,  Poen.  20 ;  f  aciam  ut  mei  memi- 
neris,  dum  uitam  uiuas,  Pers.  495 ;  quaeso  dum  uiuas  uti  omnes 
tui  similes  hospites  habeas  tibi,  Rud.  499.     And  Richardson  (De 
Dum  Particulae  apud  Priscos  Scriptores  Latinos  Usu,  p.   72) 
similarly  explains  the  dependent  clause  in  Epid.  501,  \diich  is  a 
sentence  of  the  same  kind,  in  dependence  upon  a  verb  in  the  past. 
But  the  occurrence  of  subjunctives   after  dum  with  the  same     ' 
meaning,   which   do  not  depend   upon  subjunctives   and  which 
clearly  show  anticipatory  force,  proves  that  the  cases  just  men- 
tioned should  be  considered  as  instances  of  the  anticipatory  sub- 
junctive.    The  following  will  illustrate  what  I  mean: 

True.  716,  Ego^  interim  hie  restiti  tricis  praesidebo 

iste  dum  sic  faciat  domum  ad  te  exagogam. 

Cf.  TOippa  ' . .  xT^fiaT'  idouTou  Off  pa  xe  xecun^  toozov  iyji  ^oov.  ^  123. 
ofp  di^  fiiv  xeu  doOpaz"  iu  dp/iopcjjffeu  dp^prj,  zinpf  abzoh 
pLtvio),     e  361. 

True.  103,  Oenus  eorum  aliquis^  oculum  amicae 

usque  oggerit  dum  illi  agant. 

The  same  subjunctive  with  other  particles  is  illustrated  by  the 
following : 

Amph.  439 :  ubi  ego  Sosia  nolim  esse,  tu  esto  sane  Sosia.* 

»Thi8  interpretation  is  given  by  Lange,  De  Sententiarum  TemporaUum 
apud  Prise.  Scr.  Lat.  Syntaxi,  p.  41. 


ATTBACTION    OF    MOOD   IN    EABLY   LATIN. 


Cf.  ijrijv  d^  fJ^ot  <TX^8ir^i^  8ea  zufia  nvafzy,  ptj^o/ku.     e  363. 

See  also  in  Umbrian:  pone  esonome  ferar  ...  ere  fertu — 
Iguv.  Tab.^  VIb,  50,  which  Bucheler  translates:  cum  in  rem 
divinam  feretur  ...  is  f erto. 

Trin.  1131,  id  repetundi  copiast  qnando  uelis, 

Blase'^  goes  so  far  even  as  to  accept  Kodenbusch's  explanation 
of  the  subjunctive  for  the  following  independent  sentences  in 

Plautus : 

Amph.  1060:  Nee  me  miserior  feminast  neque  uUa  uideatur 

magis. 

True.  907:   Nunquam  hoc  uno  die  efficiatur  opus. 

Now  that  the  existence  of  this  subjunctive  has  become  so  widely 
recognized,  it  will  no  longer  seem  an  unnatural  interpretation  to 

1  Buck  The  Oscan-Umbrian  Verb-System,  Studies  in  Class.  Phil.,  Chicago, 
1895,  p.  146;  also  Buck,  Osc.-Umbr.  Grammar,  1904,  p.  219,  of  which  he  has 
kindly  permitted  me  to  use  the  proof  sheets. 

«Historische  Lateinische  Grammatik    (1903),  p.   123.      Cf.   also   p.    124, 
where  Blase  with  Rodenbusch  and  Hale  takes  quaecumque  opies,  cited  above, 
as  an  example  of  the  Anticipatory  subjunctive,  rather  than  as  due  to  attrac- 
tion.     His  words  are:  "  Ahnlich  nahe  stehen  sich  Konj.  Prfts.  und  futur  im 
Relativsatz    ...    So  ist  der  unklassische  Konjunktif  in  verallgemeinernden 
Relativsatzen  zu  erkiaren  wie  As.  44,  di  tibi  dent  quaecumque  optes;  Stich., 
69  pad  nos  oportet,  quod  ille  faciat  quoius  potestas  plus  potest.     Denn  da, 
wo  futurale  Bedeutung  ausgeschlossen  ist,  steht  der  Indikativ,  wie  Pers.  293 
eveniant  tibi  quae  opt  as  (=modooptavi8ti).    .    .    .   Eine  Reihe  von  Typen  des 
konjunktivischen  Gebrauchs  in  untergeordneten  SUtzen  fUhrt  auf  diesen  von 
ihm  'prospektiv'  genannten  Gebrauch  zurtick  Hale,  The  Anticipatory  Sub- 
junctive, etc."     Blase  is,  however,  not  correct  in  stating  that  "  wo  futurale 
bedeutung  ausgeschlossen  ist,  steht  der  indikativ."     The  futures  of  this  kind 
are,  to  be  sure,  usually  in  the  subjunctive;  but  it  has  escaped  Blase's  notice 
that  these  very  cases  had  by  the  time  of  Plautus  gone  so  far  in  creating  a 
habit  for  attraction  that  even  present  generalizing  clauses  of  the  same  gen- 
era]   nature  are   frequently   in   the   subjunctive,   and   that    this   habit   had 
been  strengthened  by  a  factor  already  referred  to   (p.  5),  in  which,  even  in 
the  present  tense,  the  subordinate  clause  is  subjunctive  by  the  extension  of  the 
modal  feeling  from  the  governing  verb.     The  dependent  clause  of  Pseud.  936, 
tantum  tibi  boni  di  immortales  duint  quantum  tu  tibi  exoptes,  certainly  refers 
to  the  present  time,  for   the  wish   in   question   had   just  been   expressed. 
Nevertheless  it  is  in  the  subjunctive  mood.    The  context  is  equally  explicit  in 
referring  the  dependent  verb  of  M.  G.  1038,  di  tibi  dent  quaequomque  optes,  to 
the  present.      For  further  examples,  see  the  list  on  p.  32.      Furthermore 
Blase,  by  his  interpretation,  which  is  correct  enough,  of  the  illustration  which 
he  cites    (eveniant  tibi  quae  optas   [=modo  optavisti]),  shows  that  he  is 
really  not  dealing  with  a  generalizing  ("  verallgemeinerenden")   clause,  but 
with  a  determinative  clause;  and  he  has  failed  to  see  that  quae  optas  is  in 


THE    SOUECES   OP    THE    CONSTEUCTION. 


15 


take  optes  of  the  sentence  cited  by  Mr.  Hale  (di  tibi  dent  quae- 
cumque optes)  as  a  survival  of  the  Anticipatory  subjunctive,  and 
to  state  that  these  anticipatory  subjunctives,  surviving,  as  is  nat- 
ural, after  present  subjunctives  referring  to  the  future,  formed 
an  important  influence  in  the  development  of  the  hahit  of  attrac- 
tion.^ An  examination  of  the  table  following  will  show  that  a 
very  large  percentage  of  the  verbs  referring  to  the  future  and 
depending  upon  a  verb  in  the  subjunctive  is  placed  in  the  same 
mood ;  that  in  fact  the  percentage  is  far  higher  here  than  in  any 
other  time-sphere;  and  that  if,  in  addition  to  referring  to  the 
future,  the  subordinate  verb  is  placed  in  close  proximity  to  the 
governing  subjunctive  (cf.  p.  46),  it  is  almost  invariably  in  the 
same  mood. 


the  indicative,  not  because  it  does  not  refer  to  the  future,  but  because  it  is 
a  very  definite  determinative  clause  (=quae  modo  optavisti)  (cf.  p.  49). 
Blase  was  probably  led  astray  by  the  erroneous  statement  of  Lange  (loc.  cit., 
p.  45):  Hie  usus  apud  Plautum  et  Terentium  certis  etiamdum  finibus  con- 
strictus  fuit:  tum  enim  solum  adhibitus  est  cum  in  enuntiatione  demon- 
strativa  futura  aliqua  notio  continetur.  But  Lange  had  himself  seen  that 
the  subordinate  verb,  even  when  referring  to  the  future,  was  less  frequently 
in  the  subjunctive  when  it  preceded  the  main  subjunctive  than  when  it  was 
closely  attached  to  it  (p.  39).  A  sharper  analysis  then,  even  if  Blase  failed 
in  data,  would  have  led  him  to  the  conclusion  that  the  mood  in  these  cases 
was  not  wholly  a  matter  of  the  expression  of  the  idea  of  futurity,  but  in  some 
of  them  was  due  to  the  proximity  of  the  clause  to  the  subjunctive  of  the 
governing  clause,  i.  e.,  to  mechanical  attraction. 

» In  this  connection  it  should  be  noted  that  the  examples  of  attraction 

so-called— which  occur  in  Oscan  and  Umbrian  are  verbs  which  refer  to  the 
future.     The  list  is  as  follows: 

I.  pun  far  kahad,  nip  putiiad  edum.  (Curse  of  Vibia.)  (When  he  takes 
food  may  he  not  be^able  to  eat.)      (Buck,  Osc.-Umbr.  Verb-System,  p.  147.) 

2.  prehabia,  pire  uraku  ri  esuna  si  herte,  et  pure  esune  sis.  Iguv.  Tab. 
V,  a,  5.  (praehibeat  quidquid  ad  illam  rem  diuinam  sit  oporteat,  et  qui  in 
diuino  sint     Buck,  Osc.-Umbr.  Verb-System,  p.  144.) 

3.  persei  marsei  ( ?)  depending  upon  a  subjunctive.  Iguv.  Tab.  VI,  a,  28, 
38,  48.  ("So  far  as  is  right.")  This  is  not  an  undoubted  instance.  See 
Buck,  Osc.-Umbr.  Grammar,  p.  218. 

Mr.  Buck,  from  whose  paper  (The  Oscan-Umbrian  Verb  System)  I  have  taken 
these  examples,  adds  in  a  footnote  (p.  149)  "  Assimilation  may  be  a  conserving 
rather  than  a  creative  force,  may  merely  tend  to  preserve  an  old  construction 
against  the  inroads  of  the  future  indicative." 


16 


ATTBACTION   OF    MOOD   15"   EARLY   LATIIC. 


II 


' 


qui. 


cum. 


cum. 


vii. 


Subjunctives  Which  Kefer  to  the  Future  axd  Depend 

Upon  Subjunctives. 

A.  Depending  upon  Independent  VoUtive  Svhjunciives. 

In  the  Second  Person. 
Hec.  391,  id  facias  quod  in  rem  sit  tuam. 
Stich.  149,  neque  tu  me  celassis  quod  scias, 
Cato,^   K.   R.   61,   agrum  frumentarium  cum  ares 

bene  .  .  .  ares. 
In  the  Third  Person. 
Asin.  776-7,  neque  illaec  ulli  pede  pedem  homini 

premat  quom  surgat, 

.    .    .    neque  quom  descendat  inde,  det  quoiquam 

manum. 
Asin.  780,  quom  iaciat  "  te  "  ne  dicat 
Cf.    Oscan,2    Pun   far   hahad,   nip    putiiad   edum 

(when  he  takes  food,  may  he  not  be  able  to  eat). 
True.  233,  uhi  nil  habeat  alium  quaestum  coepiat. 
Cato,  R.  R.  3,  olea  uJ)i  lecta  siet,  oleum  fiat  con- 

tinuo. 
Poen.  20,  neu  sessum  ducat  dum  histrio  in  scaena 

siet. 
True.  232,  dum  habeat,  dum  amet. 
Pseud.  307,  quando  ni»l  sit,  simul  amare  desinat. 
Bacch.  652,  ubiquomque  usus  siet,  pectore  expromat 

suo. 
Plant.  Frag.  Fab.  cert.  91,  quique  liceat,  ueneat. 
Cato,  R.  R.  2,  quae  satis  accipienda  sint,  satis  ac- 

cipiantur. 
2,  frumentum  quod  supersit  uendat. 
6,  cui  iussus  siet,  auscultet. 
2,  quae  opus  sint  locato,  locentur. 
89,  ex  gula  consideret,  qu^d  satis  sit. 
Aul.  156,  quae  eras  ueniat,  perendie  foras  feratur. 

»  As  Cato's  treatise  is  a  series  of  directions  for  a  definite  person,  with  a 
view  to  future  contingencies,  we  need  not  doubt  that  the  subjunctives  quoted 
from  the  De  Re  Rustica  refer  to  the  future,  and  further  that  they  are  never 
instances  of  the  subjunctive  in  the  second  person  indefinite. 

From  the  "  Curse  of  Vibia,"  see  Buck,  Oscan-Umbrian  Verb  System,  p.  147. 


dum. 


quando, 
vhicumque. 

quL 


u 


u 


u 


H 


li 


it 


a 


u 


THE   SOURCES   OF   THE   CONSTRUCTION. 


17 


B.  Depending  upon  Dependent  Clauses  of  Plan. 


cum. 


Aul.  278,  ibo  intro  ut  .  .  .  facta  qicom  ueniat  sient 

Asin.  185,  ut  quom  uideat  gaudeat. 

Cas.   133,  unde  auscultare  possis  quam  ego  illam 

ausculer. 
Cur.  253,  ut  sit  paratum  prandium  qucm  ueniat. 
Most.  1064,  astate,  ut  quom  extemplo  uocem,  con- 

tinuo  exiliatis. 
Most.  249,  ornata  ut  sim  quom  hue  adueniat. 
Pseud.    168,   ne  mora   quae   sit  .  .  .  cocus   quom 

ueniat. 
Pseud.  1115,  ne  qu^m  adsiet  metuam. 
Pers.  190,  ut  domi  sis  quom  ego  te  esse  illi  censeam. 
Pers.  191,  uti  domi  sim  qu/)m  illi  censeas. 
Pers.  152,  ut  fleat  quom  ea  memoret. 
Cato,  R.  R.  73,  ne  quaeras  qu/)m  opus  siet. 
Heaut.  711,  ut  quom  narret  senex  .  .  .  non  credat 

tamen. 

Adel.  354,  curre  .  .  .  ut  quom  opus  sit,  ne  in  mora 
nobis  siet. 

Andr.  424,  i  nunciam  intro  ne  in  mora  quom  opus 
sit  sies. 

Phorm.  839,  ne  quom  hie  non  uideant,  me  oonficere 

credant  argentum. 
Hec.  694,^  ut  cum  ilia  uiuas  testem  banc  quom  abs 

te  amoueris. 
Eun.  933,^  ut  quom  cognorit  perpetuo  oderit. 
Men.   543,^   ut  te  lubenter  uideam  quom  ad  nos 

u£neris. 
Cap.  435,^   tu  me  ignores  quom  extemplo  meo  e 

conspectu  abscesseris. 
Heaut.  854,  ut  quom  desponderim  des. 
quando.  Bacch.  768,  ut  quando  exeat,  extemplo  .  .  .  ei  ta- 

bellas  dem. 

Men.  1045,  ne  tum  quando  sanus  factus  sit,  a  me 
argentum  petat. 

Bacch.    730,    ut   pater   cognoscat   litteras,    quando 
legat. 

Poen.  552,  ut  quando  agas,  quid  agas,  sciant 

»The  dependent  verbs  are  probably  in  the  subjunctive,  cf.  p.  51. 


ATTBACTION    OF    MOOD   IN   EARLY   LATIN. 


I 


pnusqiuim 
ubi. 


dum, 
qui. 


Eun.  751,  caue  ne  priusquam}  banc  accipias,  amit- 

tas. 
Bacch.  43,  iit   vhi  emeritum   sibi   sit   se   reuehat 

dommn. 

"        46,  ut    reuebatur    domlllli    ubi    ei    dederit 
operas. 
M.  G.  3,  ut  vhi  usus  riemct  .  .  .  praestringat  ocu- 

lorum  aciem. 
Pers.  230,  ne  ubi  uorsicapillus  fias,  foede  semper 

eeniias. 
True.  230,  quin  tibi  nil  det  ,  .  .  eum  mittat  .  .  . 

domum. 
M.  G.  1122,  ut  ubi  illaec  prodeat  me  prouoces. 
M.  G.  946,  nequid,  ubi  miles  uenerit,  titubetur. 
Cur.  664,  ut  semper  dum  uiuat  me  alat. 
Aul.   600,  berile  imperium  ediscat  ut  quod  frons 

uelit  oculi  sciant ;  quod  iubeat  .  .  .  properet  per- 

sequi. 
Pseud.    883,   ut  quisque     .  .  .     gustauerit     .  .  . 

faciam. 
Pers.   156,  adferto  causiam  quam  ille  babeat  qui 

banc  .  •  .  uendat. 
Mere.  504,  ut  quod  imperetur  facias. 
Cato,  E.  R.  137,  quod  bubus  satis  siet,  qui  illic  sienL 
comparison.    True.   96,  nequis  aduentor  grauior  abaetat  quam 

adueniat. 
ubicumque.     Pseud.  580,  ut  ubiquomque  bostibus  congrediar  .  .  . 

ut  uincam. 

C.  Depending  upon  Clauses  of  Proviso. 

qui.  M.  G.  785-6,2  ^^jj^  joaodo  eam  des  qu^  sit  quaes- 

tuosa,  quae  alat  corpus  corpore,  quoique  sapiat 
pectus. 

D.  Depending  upon  Substantive  Clauses  of  Fear. 

cum.  Heaut.  1017,  metuis  ne  non  quom  v^lis  conuincaa 

esse  ilium  tuom. 

qui.  Baccb.  1173,  non  metuo  nequid  mibi  doleat  quod 

ferias. 
iSee  p.  53. 
•Perhaps  this  illustrates  the  volitivc  subjunctive. 


THE    SOUECES   OF    THE    CONSTRUCTION. 


19 


quando. 


E.  Depending   upon   Substantive    Clauses    of   Plan,    Wish,    or 
Bequest. 

cum.  Ampb.   542,  numquid  uis?     Ut  quom  absim  me 

ames. 

Ampb.  983,  fac  sis  .  .  .  ut  ministres  mibi,  mibi 
qux)m  sacruficem. 

Aul.   273,   curata  fac  sint  quom  a  foro  redeam 
domum. 

Capt  494,  irrogabo  multam  ut  mibi  cenas  decern 

meo  arbitratu  dent  quom  cara  annona  dt. 
Sticb.  65,  facite  sultis  nitidae  ut  aedes  meae  sint 

quom  redeam. 
M.  G.  578,  ut  miles  quom  extemplo  a  foro  adueniat 

domum,  comprebendar. 
Cato,  R.  R.  28,  caueto  cum  uentus  siet  aut  imber, 

effodias. 

True.  433,  (uolo)  ut  quando  otium  tibi  sit  ad  me 
reuisas. 

Pseud.  663,  uide  sis  ne  in  quaestione  sis  quando^ 
accersam. 

Aul.  613,  quin  uhi  accersat  meam  extemplo  filiam 
ducat  domum. 

Rud.  1220,  (fac)  ut  mi  Ampelisca  nubat  uhi  ego 
sim  liber. 

Poen.  855,  ut  uhi  mibi  uapulandum  sit  tu  corium 

sufferas. 
Eun.  394,  boc  prouiso  ut  uhi  tempus  siet  deducam. 
Cato,  R.  R.  2,  uhi  ea  cognita  aequo  animo  sint  .  .  . 

uti  perficiantur. 

Pers.  495,  faciam  ut  mei  memineris  dum  uitam 

uiu/is. 
Rud.  499,  deos  immortales  quaeso  dum  uiuas  uti 

omnes  tui  similes  bospites  habeas  tibi. 
Adel.  681,  uelim  me  .  .  .  ames  dum  uiuas. 
utquomque.     Andr.   736,   tu  ut  subseruias  orationi  uJtquomque 

opus  sit  uerbis  uide. 
Capt.  448,  ut  quam  primum  possis  redeas. 
Trin.  41,  teque  ut  quam  primum  possim  uideam 

emortuam. 

*  I  do  not  hesitate  to  class  accersam  with  the  subjunctives. 


vhi. 


dum. 


quam 
primum^ 


20 
qui. 


ATTRACTION    OF   MOOD   IN   EAELY   LATIN. 

Stich.  121,  pridie  caiieat  ne  faciat  quod  pigeat  pos- 

tridie. 
Capt.  386,  ut  potissimum  quod  in  rem  recte  corir 

ducat  tuam  id  petam. 
Most.  558,  eum  uideto  ut  capias  qui  credat  mihi. 
Fers.  616,  scio  officium  meum,  ut  quae  rogiter  uera 

eloquar. 
Phorm.  449,  quae  in  rem  tuam  mnt  ea  ualim  facias. 
Eun.  1026,  ut  faciam  quod  iubeat, 
Hec.  65,  quin  .  .  .  laceres  quemque  nada  sis. 
Heaut.  721,  quasi  non  ea  potestas  sit  tua  qw)  uelis 

in  tempore  ut  te  exsoluas. 
Men.    549,    ut    quantum    possint    quique    liceant 

ueneant. 
Cato,  R  K.  2,  reliqua  qu/ie  sint  ut  compareant. 
Cato,  K.  K.  2,  quue  supersint  uti  ueneant. 


F.  Depending  upon  Independent  Expressions  of  Wish. 

qui.  Asin.  44,  di  tibi  dent  quaequomque  optes. 

Trin.  713,  bene  quod  agas  eiieniat  tibi. 
Phorm.  552,  di  bene  uortant  quod  agas.      So  also 

Hec.  197.) 
Epid.  6,^  di  dent  quae  uelis.     (So  also  Pers.  483; 

Poen.  1055;  Stich.  469;  Trin.  1152.) 
Trin.  437,  di  duint  tibi  quaequomque  optes. 
Afranius  358,  di  tibi  dent  propria  qumquomque 

exoptes. 

G.  Depending  upon  Another  Anticipatory  Subjunctive. 


cum. 


gut. 


Heaut.  544,  (expectat)  dum  hie  denuo  abeat  qu/)m 

tolerare  illius  sumptus  non  qu£at. 
Poen.  747,  quam  .  .  .  quad  loquantur  creduam. 


iThis  expression  and  its  equivalents  are  often  used  in  salutations  and 
seem  to  refer  to  the  future.  Interesting  varieties  of  it  are  found  in  Asin. 
623,  dabunt  di  quae  uelitis,  and  in  Pers.  16,  dabunt  di  quae  exoptes,  which 
betray  the  tense-tone  of  the  expression.  Here  uelitis  and  exoptes  are  evidently 
in  the  anticipatory  subjunctive,  and  depend  in  both  instances  upon  dabunt, 
which  is  virtually  a  future  imperative. 


THE    SOURCES   OF    THE    CONSTRUCTION. 


21 


H.  Depending  upon  Potential  Subjunctives. 


dum. 

qui. 
cum. 


uhi. 


Phorm.  1030,  habet  haec  ei  quod  dum  uiuat  usque 
ad  aurem  obganniat. 

Cas.  256,  ubi  educat  pueros  quos  pariat. 

Afranius  199, 

!N'on  usque  quaque  idoneum  inuenias  locum 
Ubi  derepente  cum  uelis  facias  lutum. 

Eun.  1080,  facile  pellas  uhi  u^lis.  ;■*' 


I.  Depending  upon  Conditional  Subjunctives. 

cum.  Men.   454,   qui  nisi  adsint  quom  citentur  census 

capiat  ilico. 
Poen.  27,  ne  uarientur  uirgis  ...  si  minus  curas- 

sint  quom  eri  reueniant  domum. 
True.  234,  nisi  modo  quom  dederit  dare  iam  Iubeat 

denuo. 

Merc.  406,  flagitium  sit  si  sequatur  quando  incedat 
per  uias. 

Poen.  148,  ubi  dissolutus  tu  sies,  ego  pendeam. 


cjuando. 
uhi. 


cum. 


J.  Depending  upon  Clauses  of  Result. 

Andr.  394,  patri  die  uelle,  ut  quom  uelit  tibi  iure 

irasci  non  queat. 
Phorm.   822,  quas  quom  res  aduorsae  sint,  paulo 

mederi  possis. 
Accius  337,  nunquam  erit  tam  immanis  cum  non 

mea  opera  extinctum  sciat  quin  fragescat. 
Heaut.    951,    adeo   exornatum   dabo  .  .  .  ut   dum 

uiuat  meminerit. 


dum. 


K.  Depending  upon  Indirect  Questions  of  Futurity. 

qui.  Eun.  790,  qui  scis  an  quae  iuheam  sine  ui  faciat? 

L.  Depending  upon  an  Indirect  Question  of  Douht. 
cum.  Merc.  344,  neque  is  quom  roget  quid  loquar  cogita- 

tumst. 


22 


ATTRACTION   OF   MOOD   IN   EAELT   LATIN. 


Indicatives  (Future  or  Present-Future)  Depending  Upon 

Subjunctives.     {Not  attracted.) 

quu  M.  G.  573,  post  hac  etiara  illud  quod  scies,  nesci- 

ueris.  Asin.  781,  deam  inuocet  sibi  quam  lubebit 
Pers.  524,  suo  periculo  is  emat  qui  earn  merca- 
bitur.  Rud.  486,  qui  homo  sese  miserum  uolet 
Neptuno  credat  sese.  Cato,  R.  R.  8,  qui  eum 
.  .  .  habebit,  paret  Cato,  R.  R.  22,  uti  expleas 
quod  interest.  Cato,  R.  R.  31,  quae  opus  erunt 
parentur.  Cato,  R.  R  70,  ieiunus  siet  qui  dabit. 
Cato,  R.  R.  89,  gallinas  teneras  quae  primum 
parient   eoncludat.     Cato,    R.    R.    32,    rami   ut 

>  diuaricentur  quos  relinques.     Cato,  R.  R.   103, 

qui  fastidient  cibum  ut  .  .  .  adpetant  .  •  .  spar- 

•  gito,    Cato,  R.R.  142,  ut  quae  opus  sunt,  parentur. 

Most.  1095,  ne  hue  confugere  possint  quaestioni 
quos  dabit  Amph.  608,  caue  quicquam  nisi 
quod  rogabo  te  mihi  responderis.  Bacch.  989,  uolo 
ut  quod  iubebo  facias.  M.  G.  254,  inducamus 
uera  ut  esse  credat  quae  mentabimur.  Cur.  432, 
quaeso  qui  has  tabellas  adferet  ut  ei  detur.  M. 
G.  81,  qui  auscultare  nolet,  exsurgat  foras. 

cum.  Cato,  R.  R.  23,  quom  pluet,  quala  parentur.     Cato, 

R.  R.  25,  quom  uinum  coctum  erit  facito  ut  ser- 
uetur.  Cato,  R.  R.  40,  quom  praecides  caueto  ne 
librum  conuellas.  Cato,  R.  R.  45,  ne  liber  laboret 
cum  dolabis.  Cato,  R.  R.  45,  ne  librum  scindas 
cum  adiges.  Cato,  R.  R.  54,  ne  sectentur  cum 
arabunt  Pseud.  163,  haec  quom  reuortor  facite 
ut  offendam  parata.  M.  G.  1176,  quom  extemplo 
hoc  erit  factum,  facito  ut  uenias.  Mer.  146,  ne 
laborem  capias  quom  illo  uti  uoles.  Rud.  1206, 
adoma  ut  rem  diuinam  faciam,  quom  aduenero. 
Asin.  372,  mox  quom  Saurean  imitabor,  caueto  ne 
suscenseas.  Amph.  197,  meditabor  quo  modo 
dicam  quom  aduenero.  Bacch.  826,  ut  auferam 
quom  ilium  rescisces.  Hec.  575,  uereor  ne  orata 
nostra    nequeat   celare    quom    sciet.     Hec.    769, 


the  sources  of  the  construction. 


23 


ubi. 


qaando. 


quotiens. 


quo. 

quam. 

dum 

(=  while). 


dum 

(=  until). 


quom  tu  eris  satura  ut  puer  satur  sit  facito.  M. 
G.  811,  ut  cum  hie  agit,  actutum  partis  defendaa 
tuas. 

Cato,  R.  R.  86,  ubi  coctum  erit  lacte  addat.  Cato, 
R.  R.  156,  ubi  libido  ueniet  .  .  .  decumbat 
Cato,  R.  R.  156,  ubi  uersus  ibit  heminam  .  .  . 
bibat.  Cato,  R.  R.  95,  ubi  erit  crassum  .  .  . 
sinito  frigescat.  Pers.  86,  curate  .  .  .  ne  mihi 
morae  sit  ubi  intro  aduenero.  Bacch.  36,  ubi  me 
fugiet  memoria  .  .  .  facito  ut  subuenias.  Capt. 
342,  ubi  erunt  indutiae  illuc,  qui  conueniat  pa- 
trem.  Epid.  595,  ubi  noles,  ne  fueris  pater. 
Pers.  384,  uideto,  me  ubi  uoles  nuptum  dare,  ne 
faciat. 

Most.  403,  neu  quisquam  responset  quando  aedia 
pultabit.  Bacch.  224,  ueniat  quando  uolt.  Hec. 
619,  utrum  illaec  fecerint  quando  haec  aberit. 
Aul.  78,  ut  faciam  litteram  longam,  meum  laqueo 
collum  quando  obstrinxero.  Poen.  1409,  quando 
ex  nemo  emissu's,  compingare  in  carcerem. 

Cato,  R.  R.  151,  quotiens  opus  erit,  purges.  Cato, 
R.  R.  151,  quotienscumque  opus  erit  facito  ut 
addas. 

Cato,  R.  R.  21,  ne  foramina  maiora  fiant  quo  inden- 
tur.     Men.  1044,  dicam  ut  abeat  liber  quo  uolet 

Cato,  R.  R.  66,  quam  diligentissime  poterit,  tollat 
Rud.  779,  ego  dum  abes  ut  abeat  non  sinam. 
Rud.  558,  tibi  copiast  dum  lingua  uiuet  qui  rem 
soluas.  Poen.  1421,  dum  auctionem  facio  opuat 
ut  maneas. 

Rud.  880,  suadeo  ut  ad  nos  abeant  potius,  dum  re- 
cipis.  True.  874,  ut  .  .  .  sinas  .  .  .  dum  ali- 
quo  miles  circumducitur.  Phorm.  513,  ut  me 
maneat  .  .  .  triduom  hoc  dum  id  .  .  .  aufero. 
Eun.  894,  uin  interea  dum  uenit  domi  opperi- 
amur  ?  Rud.  773,  oro  ut  illas  serues  .  .  .  dum 
ego  erum  adduce  meum.  M.  G.  1333,  ne  inter- 
ueneris  quaeso,  dum  resipiscit  Add.  786,  nisi 
•  .  .  dum  haec  silescunt,  abeam. 


24 


ATTEACTION    OF    MOOD   IN    EAKLY    LATIN. 


priusquam      Epid.  304,  ne  abitas  priusquam  ego  ad  te  uenero. 
antequam,  Bacch.   381,  priusquam  malum  istoc  addis  cer- 

tumst  dicam.  Gato,  R.  R.  161,  ne  ante  sarueris 
quam  asparagus  natus  erit.  Asin.  448,  nunc 
adeam  optimust  priusquam  incipit  tinnire. 
Phorm.  719,  ut  conueniat  banc  priusquam  hine 
abit  Phorm.  898,  priusquam  dilapidat  .  .  ut 
auferamus.  M.  G.  1408,  obsecro  .  .  .  te  .  .  . 
ut  audias  priusquam  secat  Andr.  558,  prius- 
quam .  .  .  redducunt  animum,  uxorem  demus. 
Poen.  1399,  ut  minam  .  .  .  reddas  priusquam 
.  .  .  abducere.  Bacch.  440,  at  .  .  .  priusquam 
septuennis  est,  si  attingas  eum. 
donee.  Cato,  R.  R.  86,  lacte  addat  donee  crassus  erit  f  actus. 

Bacch.  758,  ne  quoquam  exsurgatis  donee  a  me 
erit  signum  datum. 
Before  we  draw  conclusions  from  these  tables,  a  word  of  warn- 
ing must  be  given.     It  will  be  noticed  that  the  usage  of  Cato 
diverges  noticeably  from  that  of  the  other  early  writers,  a  fact 
which  is  easily  understood  by  the  reader  of  the  De  Re  Rustica. 
When  Cato  has  once  fairly  entered  his  subject,  his  work  becomes 
practically  a  string  of  sentences  shaped  after  this  mould :    quom 
(ubi,    si,    etc.)  .  .  .  erit,    facito,    with    remarkable    monotony. 
There  are  over  three  hundred  sentences  of  this  form  in  the  little 
volume.     Naturally,  then,  the  future  indicative  becomes  so  fixed 
in  the  dependent  clause,  that  one  could  hardly  expect  it  to  be 
attracted  to  the  subjunctive  when,  for  any  reason,  a  jussive  sub- 
junctive is  used  instead  of  an  imperative  in  the  main  clause. 
That  I  am  right  in  saying  that  the  future  indicative  becomes  fixed, 
is  proved  by  the  fact  that  in  the  first  few  chapters,  several  cases 
of  attraction  occur  before  the  use  of  the  regularly  recurring  future 
indicative  with  the  imperative  becomes  noticeable ;  after  that  they 
are  remarkably  rare.     I  would  also  add  that  conclusions  drawn 
from  my  lists  in  regard  to  priusquam-,  dum-,  and  si-clauses,  would 
be  erroneous  if  accepted  without  modification   (see  pp.   52-5). 
After  dum  =  until,  it  is  customary  to  classify  the  verbs  as  inher- 
ently subjunctive ;  but  the  very  fact  that  about  sixty  per  cent,  of 
the  verbs  after  dum  =  until  are  in  the  indicative^  in  early  Latin, 
1  Hale-Buck,  Grammar,  571,  and  footnote,  for  the  explanation  of  this  fact. 


THE    SOtJECES   OF    THE    CONSTRUCTION. 


25 


and  that  over  half  of  those  which  are  in  the  subjunctive  are  also  in 
dependence  upon  subjunctives  and  infinitives,  goes  to  show  that 
many  of  the  latter  must  be  due  to  attraction.  In  general  the  same 
condition  of  things  obtains  with  the  priusquam-clauses.  With 
si-clauses,  the  feeling  of  the  less  vivid  future  is  so  subtile  in  early 
Latin  that,  in  the  majority  of  cases  where  the  present  subjunctive 
is  found  with  si  in  dependence  upon  another  subjunctive,  I  believe 
it  is  impossible  to  say  with  certainty  whether  the  writer  would 
have  used  an  indicative,  if  the  clause  had  not  been  thus  dependent 
(see  p.  54).  In  cases  of  this  class,  accordingly,  it  must  be  under- 
stood that  the  list  of  subjunctives  is  not  as  complete  as  that  of  the 
indicatives. 

A  fair  comparison  of  the  two  uses  may  be  made  in  the  temporal 
clauses  with  cum,  ubi,  and  quando,  as  well  as  in  the  qui-clauses 
of  Plautus  and  Terence.  The  following  table  will  show  a  marked 
preponderance  of  the  subjunctive  in  clauses  which  refer  to  the 
future  and  depend  upon  another  subjunctive. 

Subjunctive 
Indicative 

This  proportion  of  the  subjunctive  to  the  indicative  becomes  sig- 
nificant when  one  finds  that,  in  early  Latin,  attraction  is  rather 
the  exception  than  the  rule,  and  that  about  thirty-five  per  cent,  of 
the  clauses  which,  so  far  as  function  and  position  are  concerned, 
are  capable  of  being  attracted,  are  in  fact  so  affected.  The  tense, 
therefore,  is  significant;  and  the  examination  has  confirmed  the 
theory  that  the  anticipatory  subjunctive  was  still  a  force  in  Latin 
during  the  time  of  Plautus.  If  then  it  is  found  to  "  supply  a  large 
factor  to  the  development  of  attraction,"  it  will  readily  be  seen 
from  the  list  just  given  that  the  factor  is  exceedingly  important, 
for  this  class  alone  makes  up  about  55  per  cent,  of  all  the  early 
Latin  verbs  that  are  usually  classed  as  subjunctives  by  attraction 
in  the  grammars. 

£. 

The  note  quoted  above  (p.  4)  from  Professor  Hale's  paper 
on  the  Anticipatory  Subjunctive  gives  a  good  illustration,  from 
conditional  sentences,  of  the  kind  of  verb  now  under  discussion: 
C.  I.  L.,  I,  196:    Sei  quis  esent  quei  sibei  deicerent  necesus  ese 


cum. 

vbi. 

guando. 

««I. 

Tolai. 

40 

15 

8 

35 

08 

10 

5 

5 

10 

30 

ATTRACTION   OF    MOOD   IN   EARLY   LATIN. 

Bacanal  habere.  Cf.  Trin.  472,  siquid  tibi  placeat  qiiod  illi  con- 
gestum  siet,  edisne?  in  which  the  conditional  feeling  is  nearly  as 
strong  in  the  quod-clause  as  in  the  «i-clause.  In  the  following 
there  is  more  or  less  of  the  conditional  feeling.  It  will  be  noticed 
that  the  dependent  clause  in  the  second  example  is,  strictly  speak- 
ing, in  grammatical  dependence  upon  the  apodosis  of  the  sentence, 
that  is,  upon  a  subjunctive  of  Ideal  Certainty.  Quod  uideas  is 
equivalent  to  si  quid  uideas. 

Amph.  871,  Nam  mea  sit  culpa  quod  egomet  contraxerim 
Si  id  Alcumenae  innooenti  expetat. 

Men.  Ill,  Ni  mala,  ni  stulta  sis  .  .  . 

Qtiod  uiro  esse  odio  uideas  tute  tibi  odio  habeas. 

There  are  numerous  examples  like  the  following: 
Capt  205,  At  pigeat  postea  nostrum  erum  si  uos  eximat  uin- 
culis  aut  solutos  sinat  quos  argento  emerit, 
in  which  there  is  a  break  in  time-sphere,  and  the  dependent  clause, 
if  emphasis  were  given  to  its  actual  time-feeling,  would  not  be  in 
the  subjunctive ;  but  the  speaker  for  the  moment  conceives  of  the 
act  from  the  ideal  rather  than  the  actual  point  of  view,  and  ex- 
presses this  feeling  by  using  the  same  mood  as  in  the  si-clause. 
Cf.  Bacch.  778,  Ni  facta  cupiam  quae  is  iielit  (strictly,  "  what 
he  now  wishes";  ideally,  "whatever  he  may  wish")  tua  iam 
uirgis  latera  lacerentur  probe.  See  also  Cure.,  269;  Bacch.,  564; 
Hec.,  555. 

F. 

In  the  same  way  a  clause  depending  upon  a  subjunctive  of 
Ideal  Certainty  may,  strictly  speaking,  state  a  general  truth  or  an 
objective  fact,  and  at  the  same  time  express  that  fact  ideally,  that 
is,  with  the  same  mental  attitude  with  which  the  rest  of  the  clause 
is  uttered.  The  dependent  verb  is  thus  thrown  into  the  same  mood 
and  tense  with  the  verb  on  which  it  depends.  A  case  in  point  in 
the  present  tense  may  be  seen  in  Cis.  497,  quodcumque  optes  tibi 
uelim  eontingere,  "  if  you  should  desire  a  thing,  I  should  like  you 
to  have  it"  Contrast  Cure.  82,  Nam  istunc  qui  fert  affictum 
uelim.  The  following  is  an  example  of  a  clause  depending  upon 
a  verb  contrary  to  fact:  Bacch.  488,  si  opperiri  uellem  .  .  .  , 
plus  uiderem  quam  deceret,  "  more  than  would  be  fitting,"  instead 


THE    SOURCES   OF    THE    CONSTRUCTION. 


27 


of  "  more  than  is  fitting."  Contrast  Adel.  108,  si  homo  esses,  si- 
neres  nunc  f acere  dum  per  aetatem  licet.  Deceret  has  to  my  mind 
the  same  tone  as  uiderefn.  The  same  relation  holds  true  in  the 
dependent  clause  of  the  following  in  Rud.  1261,  dum  praedam 
habere  se  cemeret,  interim  praeda  ipsus  esset 

In  the  following,  on  the  other  hand,  we  seem  to  have  a  clear 
case  of  attraction:  Poen.  681,  uidere  equidem  uos  uellem  quom 
huic  aumm  darem,  "  I  should  like  to  have  you  see  when  I  give  him 
the  money."  The  fact  seems  to  be  that,  after  conditional  subjunc- 
tives  and  subjunctives  of  ideal  certainty,  Latin  freely  conceives 
of  the  subordinate  act  from  the  ideal  point  of  view,  unless  the  fact 
of  Its  objective  reality  is  to  be  emphasized,  as  in  Aul.  482,  inuidia 
nos  minore  utamur  quam  utimur,OT  unless  its  time-sphere  is  clearly 
different  from  that  of  the  governing  clause,  as  in  Asin.  860,  nun- 
quam  f  aceret  ea  quae  nunc  facit.  Complete  lists  of  examples  may 
be  found  on  pp.  40-1. 

G. 

The  indirect  question  was  evidently  passing  through  an  im- 
portant change  in  the  time  of  Plautus.  We  need  not  here  discuss 
the  process  of  the  change;  suffice  it  to  say  that  the  subjunctive 
was  coming  to  be  the  mood  for  these  expressions,  and  that  a  feel- 
ing was  arising  which  demanded  the  subjunctive  for  all  indirectly 
quoted  questions ;  and  when  the  quotation  included  a  dependent 
clause,  this  too  naturally  came  to  be  put  into  the  same  mood  if 
It  was  felt  to  be  an  integral  part  of  the  original  question.  Thus, 
m  the  foMowing  sentence,  Mera  623,  quin  percontatu's,  hominis 
quae  f acies  foret  qui  illam  emisset  ?  the  quoted  question  includes 
a  relative  clause,  and  the  whole  question  "  hominis  quae  f acies  erat 
qui  illam  amiserat "  is  thrown  into  the  subjunctive.  For  the  sake 
of  comparison,  I  quote  the  following,  in  which  the  relative  clause 
IS  not  conceived  of  as  a  part  of  the  quotation :  Trin.  7,  quae  iUaec 
siet  hue  quae  abiit  intro  dicam. 

I  would  suggest  that  the  origins  of  attraction  in  clauses  of  this 
sort  go  even  deeper,  and  that  the  soKjalled  relative  clause  in  many 
instances  was  still,  as  in  its  origin,  actually  felt  as  an  interroga- 
tive in  dependence  upon  the  main  verb  of  the  sentence.^     I  mean 

>Cf.   Sommer,   Handbuch   der   Lateinischen   Laut-   und   Fonnlehre,   293- 
Hervorgegangen  ist  die  relativ  FunkUon  hauptsacUich  aus  den  indirekte^ 


28 


ATTRACTION   OF    MOOD   TS   EARLY   LATIN. 


II 


i 


that  in  a  sentence  like  the  following:  Aul.  29,  Is  scit  quae  »it 
quam  compresserit,  the  speaker  may  have  felt  practically  the  two 
questions,  quis  est?  quam  compressiif  Compare  Poen.  1027, 
Narra,  quid  est,  quid  ait!  ibid.  711,  Quid  est?  quid  uoltis,  tes- 
tes ?  It  must  be  noted  that  in  the  example  quoted,  the  interroga- 
tive feminine  becomes  quae  in  the  indirect  quotation,  though  in 
the  direct  question  it  would  be  quis  as  a  substantive  in  Plautus. 
This  fact  would  facilitate  confusion  between  the  relative  and  in- 
terrogative in  the  case  of  the  feminine  pronouns.  In  the  case  of 
the  masculine,  since  qui  and  quis^  both  occurred  frequently  as  in- 
terrogatives,  there  must  have  been  frequent  confusion.  Of  course, 
in  the  majority  of  indirect  questions,  the  possibility  of  interpret- 
ing the  dependent  relative  clause  as  an  interrogative  is  precluded 
by  the  unmistakable  nature  of  the  clause.  It  is  entirely  out  of 
the  question  in  sentences  like  the  following,  as  a  glance  will  suffice 
to  show:  Pseud.  451,  quanto  satius  est  .  .  .  exquaerere  sint  ilia 
necne  sint  quae  tibi  renuntiant;  Aul.  17,  Coepi  obseruari  ecqui 
maiorem  filius  mihi  honorem  haberet  qiuim  eius  habuisset  pater. 
Sentences  like  the  following,  however,  would  allow  the  possibility : 
Amph.  1016,  pergam  exquirere  quis  fuerit  quern  propter  corpus 
8Uom  stupri  compleuerit;  M.  G.  261,  hominem  inuestigando 
operam  huic  .  .  .  dabo  qui  fuerit  conseruous  qui  hodie  sit  sectatus 
eimiam. 

Fragesfttzen,  die  ja  oft  der  Bedeutung  von  Relativsatzen  sehr  nahe  kommen. 
Delbrtick,  Vergleichende  Syntax,  III,  p.  403,  illustrates  well  the  ambiguity  of 
some  relatives.  He  says:  Das  Relativum  entsteht  in  abhangigen  Fragen. 
£s  giebt  viele  abbftngige  FragesUtze,  in  welchen  man  das  Pronomen  ebenso  gut 
interrogativisch  wie  relativisch  aufTassen  kann  z.  B.  concrepuit  ostium, 
videamus,  qui  bine  egreditur  Men.  348,  *  seben  wir  nach,  wer  kommt  bier 
heraus?*  oder  *  seben  wir  nacb  dem,  der  bierauskommt.'  Tbe  literature  on 
the  question  of  the  relation  of  tbe  relative  pronoun  to  the  interrogative  and 
indefinite  pronouns  can  be  found  by  means  of  tbe  list  of  references  in 
Delbrtick,  ibid.,  p.  400. 

» Cf .  True.  708.  Nunc  speculabor  quid  ibi  agatur,  quia  cat  intro,  qui  foras 
tieniat.  Cf.  also  Sommer,  Handbuch  der  Lateiniscben  Laut-  und  Formlebre, 
293:  FUr  die  Flexion  machte  urspHinglicb  der  Bedeutungsunterschied  nicbts 
aus,  das  Paradigma  war  fiir  alle  drei  Verwendungen  dasselbe.  In  R.  R.  145, 
homines  eos  dato,  qui  placebunt  aut  custodi  aut  quia  eam  oleam  emerit,  Cato 
uses  quis  as  a  relative.  What  has  been  said  in  this  paragraph  must,  however, 
apply  to  written  rather  than  spoken  sentences,  for  I  am  aware  of  the 
fact  that  the  stress  of  an  interrogative  pronoun  is  often  not  that  of  a  relative. 
Cf.  Seyffert,  Berl.  Phil.  Woch.,  1891,  p.  108. 


THE   SOURCES   OP   THE    CONSTRUCTION.  29 

We  have  also  noticed  (p.  21)  that  the  anticipatory  indirect 
questions  must  be  reckoned  with  in  this  account,  if  we  are  right 
m  supposing  that  their  force  will  help  to  account  for  the  mood  of 
verbs  like  adimat  in  the  following:  Phorm.  161,  expecto  quam 
mox  ueniat  qui  adimat  banc  mihi  consuetudinem. 

Summary. 
We  have  now  examined  the  more  objectiTO  forces  which  were 
at  work  m  developing  the  construction  in  question,  and  with  our 
eye  upon  the  facts  so  far  found,  are  ready  to  make  a  partial  state- 
ment in  regard  to  what  attraction  is  and  what  it  is  not.     It  has 
become  clear,  I  think,  that  attraction  is  more  than  a  «  Streben  nach 
Concinnitat  des  Ausdrucks  »  (Draeger,  I,  p.  316)  in  each  indi- 
vidual instance,— it  is  not  even  a  habit  which  springs  purely  and 
simply  from  such  a  streben   (" hervorgegangen,"  ibid.).'  The 
phrase  "  Streben  nach  Concinnitat "  implies  a  feeling  for  stvle 
which  comes  with  a  highly  developed  prose,  and  I  fear  definitions 
like  the  one  just  quoted  come  from  an  examination  of  attraction 
as  used  by  Cicero  in  his  best  prose,— where  it  actually  merges  into 
such  an  "  efifort  at  concinnity,»— and  not  from  an  historical  study 
of  the  construction.    This  is  rather  a  habit  which  took  shape  under 
the  influence  of  the  several  similar  constructions  that  we  have  dis- 
cussed in  the  preceding,  and  it  worked  outward  from  those  definite 
starting-points  along  the  lines  governed  by  the  laws  of  analogy. 
True  It  IS  that  in  the  examples  of  the  original  type,  the  subjunc- 
tive of  the  dependent  clause  was  due  to  the  fact  that  this  clause 
happened  to  contain  the  same  modal  feeling  as  the  governing 
clause.     But  in  the  growing  construction  of  attraction  proper, 
Identity  of  mental  attitude  is  not  a  sine  qua  non  of  its  occurrence. 
Attraction  then  appears  to  be  in  the  main  a  phenomenon  of  nat- 
ural linguistic  evolution  which  falls  under  the  category  of  analogy 
working  mechanically,  rather  than  of  a  conscious  (or  unconscious) 
mental  attitude»  connected  with  stylistic  considerations.     As  we 
have  seen,  its  origins  are  found  in  the  language,  not  of  artistic 

n  have  been  careful  to  say  that  this  is  only  a  "  partial  statement,"  for  I 
fully  understand  the  danger  of  neglecting  the  element  of  i,vxu^  S^tau:  in  th« 
discussion  of  a  construction  as  subjective  as  this.  There  are  psychological 
considerations  that  must  be  taken  into  account  before  the  final  definition  is 
given.     I  shall  have  something  to  say  on  this  point  in  a  later  paper. 


30 


ATTBACTION   OF   MOOD   IN    EARLY   LATIN. 


prose,  but  of  such  prose  as  we  find  in  Early  Latin.  They  neces- 
sarily belong,  of  course,  to  the  post-paratactic  period,  but  to  that 
part  of  the  period  while  style  was  still  quite  simple  and  unadorned. 
The  very  fact  that  these  origins  are  to  be  placed  in  a  fairly  well- 
developed  stage  of  the  language,  and  yet  before  the  feeling  for  the 
intricate  and  finely  wrought  periods  of  Cicero's  day  arises,  is  a 
matter  of  great  significance,  and  again  points  to  the  same  conclu- 
sion, that  the  construction  is  not  to  be  traced  to  considerations  of 

style. 

What  the  real  genetic  forces  were  we  have  pointed  out  in  the 
preceding  pages,  and  have  illustrated  them  by  sentences  in  which 
the  dependent  clause  directly  expressed  the  same  feeling  as  the 
independent  clause,  or  a  feeling  kindred  to  it.  These  sentences 
we  have  found  in  connection  with  the  following  subjunctives: 
Jussive,  Permissive,  Deliberative  (and  its  extensions),  Dependent 
Volitive,  Optative,  Subjunctive  of  Obligation  or  Propriety,  An- 
ticipatory (present-future  and  past-future),  Conditional  Subjunc- 
tive, Subjunctive  of  Ideal  Certainty,  and  Subjunctive  in  Indirect 
Questions.  In  other  words,  the  origins  of  this  construction  are 
found  to  exist  in  connection  with  almost  every  kind  of  subjunctive 
of  any  importance  in  Early  Latin,  and  the  actual  instances  of  the 
original  kind  are  there  found  to  be  more  than  half  of  the  verbs 
usually  considered  as  cases  of  attraction. 


m 


CHAPTER  II. 

The  Uses  op  the  Consteuction,  Tables. 

Having  discussed  the  genesis  of  the  construction,  we  must  now 
see  how  It  behaved,  how  far  it  extended,  and  what  forces  opposed 
its  workings.  ^ 

I  shall  first  give  a  list  of  subjunctives  attracted  by  volitives  in 
the  primary  clause,  placing  in  a  parallel  column  unattracted  verbs 
of  the  same  general  nature,  for  convenience  of  comparison.  I 
shall  group  these  with  reference  to  the  relative  closeness  of  time 
between  the  dependent  and  independent  verbs,  for  we  have  already 
seen  that  a  shift  of  time-sphere  is  a  most  important  consideration 
in  the  matter  of  attraction.  The  remaining  groups  will  then  be 
treated  m  the  same  way  in  their  proper  order. 

It  is  also  necessary  to  note  that  identity  of  grammatical  tense 
does  not  by  any  means  imply  identity  of  actual  time.  A  univer- 
sal present  may,  for  instance,  depend  upon  a  present  volitive  sub- 
junctive; both  may  be  in  the  present  subjunctive,  while,  in  respect 
to  actual  time,  the  volitive  is  future,  and  its  subordinate  verb  is 
present.  Of  course,  for  the  moment  the  speaker  may  be  in  the 
future  attitude  of  mind  with  regard  to  both  verbs,  but  he  is  not 
necessarily  so.  This  general  consideration  must  be  applied  to 
verbs  m  the  other  tenses  as  well. 

The  following  tables  do  not  contain  the  verbs  which  refer  to  the 

future,  as  a  full  list  of  these  has  been  given.     On  the  other  hand 

1  have  included  the  examples  of  the  «  subjunctive  of  like  feeling  " 

even  when  they  have  already  been  listed  in  the  preceding,  for 

It  IS  of  course  quite  impossible  to  state  in  any  given  case  that  the 

force  of  mechanical  attraction  was  not  at  work.     For  past-futures 

see  p.  12.     Except  in  the  case  of  indirect  questions,  where  I  found 

It  necessary  to  give  complete  statistics,  I  have  excluded  the  verba 

which  were  clearly  in  indirect  discourse-explicit  or  "  implied  " 

Such  verbs  usually  depend  upon  clauses  introduced  by  impero, 

postulo,  etc.,  or  by  causal  quod.  ' 

31 


32 


fW. 


i 


ATTBACTION   OF    MOOD   IN   EAELY   LATIN. 


Group  I. 


In  which  the  main  verb  is  in  the  subjunctive  of  will  or  wish. 

1.  Both  the  governing  and  the  dependent  verbs  are  in  the 
present  tense. 


^iubmIo. 


Dependent  verb  not  attracted 
(Indicative). 

(a)  The  governing 

Rud.    1229,    habeas    quod    di 
dant.    Asin.    644,    facias    quod 
suades,     Bacch.      990c,     iubeo; 
Asin.  180,  lubet;  Cist.  768,  est; 
Bacch.    993,   iubeo;    Most.    594, 
est;  Trin.  351,  habes;  Trin.  979, 
lubet;  Andr.  393,  facts;  Heaut. 
177,  excruciat;  Eun.  78,  hahet; 
Hec.    810,    refert;    Adel.    622, 
placet;     Men.     349,     egreditur; 
Capi   609,  uolt;  Aul.   542,   ha- 
bent;  Men.  353,  est;  M.  G.  1054, 
oro;  Andr.  697,  uolunt;  Heaut. 
464,  lubet;  Eun.  529,  uolt;  True. 
233,  habent;  Gate,  R.  R.  4,  mu- 
to»^;  Aul.  776,  uolt;  Cure.  180, 
es<;  Merc.  991,  uolt;  Most.  222, 
iioltin*;     Most.     306,     gaudent; 
Pers.   373,  uolt;  Afranius,  407, 
lubet;  Cato,  Frag.   p.   79,   opus 
est,  necesse  est.    Phorm.  519  es; 
Phonn.   165,   amo;  Heaut.   589, 
extrudis;  Hec.  579,  exopto;  Hec. 
469,  nuntiant;  Men.  308,  habi- 
tant;  Asin.    841,   uolunt;   Eun. 
665,  uolunt;  Andr.  931,  spero; 
Pseud.    108,    dicis;    Rud.    158, 
quaero;  Rud.  992,  ^a5e<;  Stich. 
320,  refert. 

True.  163,  liJi  moriuost  quies- 

Cftt. 

Trin.  671,  copiast. 


Dependent  verb  attracted   (Sub- 
junctive). 

verb  is  independent. 

Capt.  548,  ne  tu  quod  istic 
fabuletur  auris  immittas  tuas. 

Most.  1100,  quod  agas  id  agas. 

Pseud.  570,  det  locum  illi  qui 
queat. 

Bacch.  656,  furetur  quod 
queat. 

Lucil.  572,  concedat  homini  id 
quod  uelit. 

M.  G.  1038,  di  tibi  dent 
quaequomque  optes. 


t. 


THE    USES   OF   THE   CONSTEUCTION,    TABLES. 


33 


qUOM' 


quantofn. 
dum. 

ut. 


qtMin, 
quantum. 


quo. 


qui. 


Most.  871,  quom  impluit  ne 
impluat  mi.  Bacch.  536,  adue- 
nis;  Capt.  355,  honestas;  M.  G. 
1419,  odes;  Poen.  668,  datis; 
Poen.  687,  uis;  Adel.  918,  uideo; 
Trin.  671,  est. 

True.  127,  aduenis. 

Merc.  553,  dum  potes  ames; 
True.  163,  uiuit. 

Asin.  731,  nunc  ut  est  elo- 
quamur;  Adel.  399,  est;  Tur- 
pilius  191,  meres. 

Stich.  44,  nos  faciant  quam 
aequomst. 

Aul.  785,  di  quantumst  per- 
duint;  Heaut.  870,  est;  Pseud. 
37,  est. 

Cato,  R.  R.  1,  ambulant. 


Amph.   960,  en  ut  sint,  ipse 
item  sit. 

Bacch.  661,  utcumque  res  sit 
ita  animimi  habeat. 
Hec.  634,  turbent  quam  uelint. 

Pseud.  936,  tantum  tibi  boni 
di  duint  quantum  tu  tibi  exoptes. 

Aul.  491,  quo  lubeant  nubant 


(6)  The  governing 
Aul.  576,  quod  habeo  ut  com- 
mutet;  Aul.  546,  sospitent  quod 
nunc  habes;  Amph.  870,  accusat; 
Amph.    970,    opust;   Capt.    329, 
sentio;  Capt.  908,  pendent;  Cas. 
311,   postulas;    Cas.    512,    para- 
^ttww^;  Cist.  632,  oportet;  Cist. 
13,  arbitrar;  Cure.  159,  agimus; 
Epid.  268,  «0?^;  Epid.  456,  aJttc- 
mo;  Men.  427,  uolo;  Men.  558, 
dan<;  Men.  955,  opus  est;  Mer. 
937,  expetis;  M.  G.  728-9,  pro- 
bast,    improbast;    M.     G.     945, 
agendumst;  Most.   903,   mulcet; 
Pseud.   12,   nesao;  Pseud.    168, 
ibist;   Stich.    26,   metuis;  True. 
722,  MoZo;  Andr.  339,  e^^;  Trin. 
654,  habes;  Heaut.   867,   cupis; 
Hec.  325,  cs^;  Adel.  706,  sunt; 
Lucil.  36,  impendet;  Lucil.  440, 


ver6  w  dependent. 

Cas.  252,  domuisti  animum  ut 
quod  uir  wc7t<  fieri  id  facias? 

Epid.  283,  iam  amota  ei  fuerit 
omnis  consultatio  nuptianim  ne 
grauetur  quod  uelis. 

Pers.  601,  ut  tibi  percontari 
liceat  quae  uelis. 

Trin.  221,  pauci  sint  faxim 
qui  sciant. 

Amph.  630,  ut  quae  imperes 
compareant. 

Men.  994,  Caue  quisquam 
quod  illic  minitetur  flocci  fecerit. 

M.  G.  41,  ut  praeolat  mihi 
quA)d  tu  uelis. 

Pseud.  207,  faciant  aduersum 
eos  quod  nolint. 

Phorm.  125,  ut  orbae  qui  sint 
genere  proximi  eis  nubant. 


34 


ATTRACTION   OF   MOOD   IN   EAKLT   LATIN. 


M. 


dwn. 


«t 


intellego;  Cato,  E.  E.  14,  sunt; 
Amph.  879,  grauidast;  Aul.  251, 
uis;  Bacch.  863,  publicat;  Cas. 
107,  rftpem;  Cas.  206,  Ivbet; 
Cas.  239,  decent;  Asin.  256,  «o- 
Z«n<;  Cure.  34,  palamst;  M.  G. 
227,  «un^-  M.  G.  1050,  cwptf; 
Pers.  74,  oppugnant;  Pers.  372, 
lice*;  Trin.  341,  uis;  Trin.  641, 
protneres;  Phorm.  42,  hdbent; 
Phonn.  533,  dandumst;  Hec. 
674,  nolo;  Hec.  768,  opust;  Adel. 
54,  faciunt;  Adel.  511,  poie5. 
Pacuu.  282,  rogo;  Turpil.  146, 
iioZo;  Accius,  509,  accolunt; 
Cato,  B.  E.  23,  sunt;  Cur.  428, 
peto;  Trin.  979,  tw)?o;  Andr.  825, 
cupis;  M.  G.  1229,  amo;  Pers. 
293,  opto;  Eud.  1256,  est. 

Eun.  537,  amabo  ut  illuc  tran- 
seas  ubi  illast. 

Hec.  385,  cum  orata  eius  rc- 
miniscor  nequeo  quin  lacrumem; 
Merc.  178,  qttom  malum  audien* 
dumst  flagitas  me  ut  eloquar. 


Adel.  711,  ne  imprudens  fa- 
ciam  forte  qv^d  nolit,  sciens 
cauebo. 

Trin.  211,  non  flocci  faciunt 
dum  illud  qv/)d  Ivbeat  sciant. 

Andr.  306,  quaeso  ...  id  uelis 
quod  possit. 

Cure.  29,  ne  id  quod  ames  .  .  . 
tibi  sit  probro. 

M.  G.  1230,  quod  cupiom  ne 
grauetup. 

Eud.  874,  ut  id  quod  quaerant 
inueniant 


M.  G.  595,  ne  dum  absum  sor- 
titae  fiat;  M.  G.  1317,  dat;  Eud. 
123,  sudumst;  Adel.  312,  est; 
Pseud.  922,  dormit;  Asin.  914, 
litigant;  Asin.  531,  expedamus; 
Andr.  556-7,  datur. 

Andr.  623,  ut  sumam  suppli- 
cium  ut  nolo;  Amph.  559,  sunt; 
Amph.  982,  intellegis;  Cas.  158, 
est;  Men.  861,  minatur;  Merc. 
989,  uolt;  Phonn.  1020,  sunt. 

M.  G.  1086,  ne  magis  sim  pul- 
cher  quam  sum;  Asin.  268,  Lu" 
lentiast;  Heaut.  681,  uolt;  M.  G. 


Andr.  160,  ut  consumat  nunc 
quom  nil  ohsint  doll. 

M.  G.  1342,  nequeo  quin  fleam 
qu^OM  abs  te  abeam. 

Bacch.  907,  ut  eirai  castigem 
quom  haec  facta  ad  hunc  faciat 
modum. 

Poen.  884,  (metus)  dum  ero 
insidias  paritem  ne  me  perduim. 


Capt.  343,  alium  misero — qui 
tua  mandata  ita  ut  uelis  perferat. 


Pers.  237,  nunquam  extere- 
brabis,  tu  ut  sis  peior  quam  ego 
siem. 


quantum. 


qno. 


qui. 


quantum. 


cum. 


qu%. 


oiiorgum 
atque. 


qui 


THE    USES   OF   THE    CONSTEUCTION,    TABLES. 


35 


2,  Solent;  True.  63,  sunt;  Men. 
192,  impetrant;  Poen.  694,  solent; 
Capt.  443,  sum. 

Bacch.  348,  ut  conueniam  quan- 
fum  potest;  Heaut.  645,  est; 
Pseud.  938,  dignu's. 

Pseud.  470,  ut  possint  quo  uolo. 

2.  Both  verbs  are  in  the  imperfect  tense. 
Eun.  574^ut  essem  unaquacum        Merc.   152,   rupi   currendo  ut 


Hec.  729,  ne  minus  hinc  im- 
petrem  quam  possiem, 

Andr.  577,  is  mihi  suadet  nup- 
tias  quantum  queam  ut  maturem. 


cupiebam;  Epid.  47,  mandauit  ut 
fidicina  quam  amabat  emeretur 
sibi. 


quae  scirem  scire  tibi  liceret. 

Bacch.  788,  orabat  quod  istic 
esset  scriptum  ut  fieret. 

Cist.  85,  ut  me  quern  ego 
amarem  sineret  cum  eo  uiuere. 

Bacch.  674,  occasio  .  .  .  fuit 
.  .  .  ut  quantum  uelles  tantum 
sumeres. 

Phonn.  733,1  ut  facerem  egestas 
me  impulit  quom  scirem  infinnaa 
nuptias  hasce  esse. 

3.  Both  verbs  are  in  the  perfect  tense. 

M.  G.  588,  quin  id  adimatur  ne        M.  G.  149,  faciemus  ut  quod 
Id  quod  uidit  uiderit;  Poen.  951,    uident  ne  uiderit. 


ueni;  Pers.  478,  credidi. 

Eun.   82,   uereor  ne  dliorsum 
atque  ego  feci  acceperit. 


M.  G.  370,  numquam  deteixe- 
bor  quin  uiderim  id  quod  ui- 
derim. 

4.  The  governing  verb  in  the  present  tense  with  the  depend- 

ENT  VERB  IN  A  DIFFERENT  TENSE. 

(a)  The  dependent  verb  in  the  perfect  tense. 
1)  live  governing  verb  independent. 


Aul.  433,  utinam  auferam  quae 
tuli;  Poen.  193,  hoc  agamus  quod 
cepimus;  True.  9,  uentumst; 
Men.  1104,  pollicitu's;  Men.  451, 
commentust;  M.  G.  1010,  sum 
agressa;  M.  G.  1100,  instruxisti; 

» The  mood  of  scirem  may  be  due  to  the  adversative  force  of  the  clause. 


Cato,  R.  R.  5,  quae  dominus 
imperauerit  fiant. 

Ibid,  quod  dominus  crediderit 
exigat. 


36 


ATTILACTION  OF   MOOD  UST   EAELY   LATIN. 


«1 


eum. 


^fM» 


quanio, 
quam, 

vt  and  com' 
paruona. 


Heaut.  31,  fecit;  Heaut.  745,  at* 
iulerunt;  M.  G.  1127,  instraxisti; 
Eun.  302,  remoratust;  Plant. 
Frag.  21,  and  Aquilius.  1,  rep^ 
perit;  Naeu.  19,  protulit 

Trin.  63,  and  True.  844,  habeas 
ut  nactu's. 

Poen.  208,  ohiulisii. 

Cato,  H.  H.  7,  salutauit, 

2)  The  governing 

Amph.  291,  imperauit;  Amph. 
948,  noui;  Aul.  278  imperauit; 
Capt  515,  oraui&ti;  Cas.  503, 
mandaui;  Cas.  512,  condiuit; 
Men.  445,  imperatumst;  Men. 
686,  commisi;  Men.  991,  tm- 
peraui;  Men.  1057,  fecisii;  Merc. 
669,  fugit;  M.  G.  949,  conduxi; 
Pseud.  639,  missus  sum;  Eud. 
587,  potaui;  Trin.  1123,  egi; 
True.  893,  perdidi;  Amph.  629, 
imperaui;  Asin.  38,  locutu's; 
Aul.  671,  /ea<;  Cure.  272,  por- 
tentumst;  Cure.  433,  emi;  Baceh. 
1020,  obiurigauit;  Men.  672, 
dedi;  Cure.  464,  locaui;  Most. 
416,  turbauimus;  Pers.  613,  tt«- 
«f<;  Trin.  141,  concreditumst; 
Heaut.  1067,  fecit;  Hec.  54,  com^ 
misit, 

Trin.  616,  euortit. 

Merc.  425,  dum  ne  minoris  uen- 
das  qvam  emi;  Men.  1033,  fui. 

Men.  1146,  tit  iusti;  Pers.  616, 
u<  accepi. 

Naeu.  7,  «/  est;  Pseud.  1020, 
ut  fuit;  Pacuuius  297,  ut  ego  egi, 
ago,  OQcim;  M.  G.  257,  exorsi 
sumus;  Phonn.  31,  usi  sumus. 


verb  dependent. 

Phorm.  845,  ut  haec  quae  con^ 
tigerint  sciat. 

Most.  413,  quae  dissignata  sint 
.  .  .  tranquille  cuncta  ut  proue- 
niant. 

Trin.  1105,  iubeto  Sagarionem 
qua£  imperauerim  curare  ut  ef- 
ferantur. 

Phorm.  272,  non  causam  dico 
quin  quod  meritus  sit  ferat. 

Heaut.  1040,  ut  semes  quod 
labore  inuenerit. 

Poen.  7,  ut  .  .  .  sedeant  .  .  . 
qui  uenerint. 


Rud.  1242,  ut  cum  maiore  dote 
abeat  qu^im  aduenerit. 


iJUl. 


«1. 

quam. 


quu 


fm. 


quom. 
priusquam. 


quL 


quu 


THE   USES   OF   THE    CONSTEUCTION,    TABLES.  37 

(h)  The  dependent  verb  in  the  imperfect  or  pluperfect  iense. 

Aul.  33,  quo  facilius  ducat  qui 
compresserat;  Capt.  939,  reli- 
queram;  M.  G.  132,  fuerat;  Men. 
426,  dederam;  Cas.  514,  erat. 

Andr.  543,  fuerant. 

Capt.  247,  seruibas. 

5.  The  governing  terb  in  a  past  tense  with  the  dependent  vebb 
in  a  different  tense. 

(a)  The  dependent  verb  in  the  present  tense. 

Andr.  583,  ne  faceres  quod  uol- 
gus  solet;  Andr.   793,  ut  sciret 

quae   uolumus;   Bacch.    689,   lo-  ', 

quar;  Pers.  433,  faciunt;  Phorm. 
656,  debeo. 

Eun.  93,  dolet;  Trin.  375,  re- 
percis.    Merc.  427,  est.  : 

(&)  The  dependent  verb  in  the  perfect  tense. 

Cas.  933,  ut  quo  ego  bibi,  bi- 
beret;  Merc.  230,  ne  noceret 
qwim  habui;  M.  G.  74,  const- 
grmui;  M.  G.  186,  uidit;  Pseud. 
72,  sciui. 

Rud.  498,  adduxisti. 

Capt.  537,  penisti. 

(c)  The  dependent  verb  in  the  pluperfect  tense. 
Capt.    720,   ut   melius   consu-      Cure.   550,  tuom  qui  signum 
lerem  tibi  quam  iUi  quicum  ...     ad    me    attulisset    nuntium    ne 
exegeram.  spernerem. 

Group  II. 

In   which   THE  main   VERB    IS    IN    THE   SUBJUNCTIVE   OF   DELIBEBA- 

TION    OR   AN   EXTENSION    OF    IT. 

(a)  The  main  verb  is  a  subjunctive  of  deliberation. 
Hec.  445,  quo  pacto  celem  qu^d 
me  orauit;    Stich.    675,   habito; 
Eun.  1046,  fuit;  M.  G.  199,  uidit. 


i 


(in. 


H. 


M. 


U. 


S8 


ATTBACTION   OF    MOOD   IN    EABLY   LATIN. 


(h)  The  main  verb  is  a  sv^junctive  of  *'  surprise,  remonstrance,  or 

indignation." 

Eun,  47,  non  earn  quom  accen"        [cf.  p.  9.     Most.  896,  Heaut. 
sorf  413-15;   Hec.   341;  Andr.   944; 

Bacch.  286;  1192;  Trin.  733; 
Epid.  588;  Men.  560-1;  Bacch. 
1190;  Phorm.  970-2.] 


Bacch.  66,  penetrem  ubi  desu- 
dasciturf 

Asin.  94,  Ten  defrudam  quoi 
esi.^  Asin.  885,  habet;  Men.  560, 
domist;  Men.  763,  expetit;  Most. 
301,  cupiof  Heaut.  784,  daturas 
sum;  Andr.  271,  crcdidit!  Adel. 
677,  ueneramf 


Phorm.  fH),  nhi  quae  Inhitum 
fuerit  peregre  feceris  .  .  . 
uenias!    cf.  p.  7. 

Merc.  702,  em  quoi  tua  quae 
habeas  commendcs  uiro ! 

Most.  494,*  mirum  quin  uigi- 
lanti  diceret  qui  .  .  .  occisus 
forei, 

Pers.  340,'  mirum  quin  regis 
Philippi  causa  .  .  .  potius  uen- 
dam  quam  mea  quae  sis  mea. 


Group  III. 

In  which  the  main  verb  is  in  the  subjunctive  of  **  OBLIGATION 

OR  propriety." 

(a)  Both  verbs  are  in  the  present  tense. 
M.  G.  55,  quid  .  .  .  dicam  quod        [See  p.  10  and  Hec.  658;  Eun. 


omnes  sciuntf  Phorm.  345,  ea 
qui  praehet,  non  hunc  habeas  .  .  . 
deum? 


566;  Amph.  434,  etc.] 

Hec.      760,      meritus  ...  est 
quod  queam  ut  commodem. 
Men.  1067,  ut  pigeat  quae  uelis. 
Men.  1100,  promeruisti  ut  mi- 
quid  ores  quod  uelis. 

>  There  arc  a  great  number  of  verbs  in  the  subjunctive  which  correspond  to 
this  indicative,  but  since  they  are  usually  classed  among  the  qui-causal  and 
adversative  subjunctives,  I  have  omitted  them.  Cf.  Amph.  434,  quid  ego  ni 
negem  qui  egomet  siem,  and  see  footnote  p.  8.  What  is  here  stated  will  also 
apply  to  the  clauses  of  the  same  nature  in  the  next  group,  no.  III.  In  group 
II,  I  have  not  classified  as  regards  tense,  for  reasons  which  have  been  given, 
p.  7. 

•Th«9e  may  be  qui-causal  subjunctives. 


THE    USES    OF    THE    CONSTRUCTION,    TABLES. 


39 


quam. 


quom. 


m. 


qui. 


quu 


Asin.  49,  cur  filio  suscenseam 
patres  ut  faciunt  ceteri. 


Eun.  75,  ut  redimas  quam 
queas  minimo  ...  at  quanti 
queas. 

Stich.  114,  ut  quom  ambulent 
...  OS  obturent. 

Bacch.  139-^2,  non  par  uidetur 
neque  sit  consentaneum  quom 
haec  intus  intus  sit  et  cum  amica 
accubet  quomque  osculetur  et 
conuiuae  alii  accubent  praesen- 
tibus  illis  paedagogus  una  ut  siet. 


(b)  Both  verbs  are  in  the  imperfect  tense. 
Hec.  230,  quae  hie  erant  cu- 
rares; Poen.  391,  dicebas. 

(c)  The  dependent  verh  is  not  in  the  same  tense  as  the  main  verb, 

Cas.  701,  cur  non  impetrem 
quod  coepi;  Trin.  1024,  periit; 
Most.  435,  uoluisti;  Rud.  1397, 
sum  iuratwi;  Pers.  637,  fuit;  Aul. 
222,  fads;  Phorm.  468,  domist. 


qui. 


UL 

quam, 

dum. 


Group  IV. 
In  which  the  main  verb  is  in  the  potential  subjunctivb. 

(a)  Both  verbs  are  in  the  present  tense. 
Asin.    234,   habeo   unde   quod        Capt.  937,  lingua  nullast  qua 
poscts    dem;    M.    G.    82,    uolt;    negem  quidquid  roges. 
Heaut.  855,  opus  sunt. 
Epid.  445,  postulas. 
M.  G.  615,  iu'sf 
M.  G.  dum  ductantj  uideas.  '        " 

(b)  The  dependent  verb  not  in  the  same  tense  as  the  main  verb. 
Merc.    175,    quaerebas?    Pers. 
434,  ut  faceres  quod  faciunt. 
Epid.  115,  sumpsi. 


40 


ATTBACTION   OF   MOOD   IN   EAELY   LATDT, 


Group  V. 

In  which  the  main  verb  is  in  the  subjunctive  of  '*  IDEAL 

CERTAINTY." 

(a)  A  verb  in  the  present  tense  depending  upon  a  *'  less  vivid  future  '* 

apodosis. 

Cure.  82,  iBtunc  qui  fert  aflBic-         Ciet.  497,  quodquomque  optes 
turn  ueliin;   Capt.   237,  suadeo;     tibi  uelim  contingere. 


Cist.  97,  si  ames  .  .  .  quam 
antes  consulas. 

Asin.  122,  mauolet  quam  non 
reddat  quod  promiserit. 


Pseud.  427,  gestant;  Poen.  971, 

iubes;  Eud.    96,   mactat;   True. 

349,  culpant;  Heaut.  642,  sciunt; 

Hec.    794,    intellego;   Cas.    999, 

dicitis. 

Aul.  493,  mores  meliores  sibi 

parent  quam  nune  ferunt;  Aul. 

482-4,    utimur;   .   .    .    metuoni 

.  .  .  sumus;  M.  G.  493,  facit. 

Capt.    961,*    quod   ego    fatear 

credin  pudeat  quom  autumesf 

Eun.  863,*  debeam  .  .  .  si  id 

fecerim  praesertim  quom  se  ser- 

uom  fateaJtur! 

(&)  Verbs  in  the  present  tense  (if  attracted,  in  the  imperfect)  de- 
pending  upon  verbs  "  contrary  to  fact  in  the  present  " 

( imperfect  subjunctive ) . 

Adel.  108,  sineres  ilium  facere 
dum  licet. 

Phorm.  11,  minus  quam  nunc 
laedit  laederet;  Baccb.  434, 
quamst, 

Phorm.  208,  qu^m  hoc  non  po«- 
sum  illud  minus  possem, 

Asin.  503,  crederes  .  .  .  quod 
fers;  Asin.  860,  facit;  Hec.  657, 
intellego. 

1 1  am  not  at  all  sure  that  we  are  right  in  placing  subjunctives  after  cum- 
causal  in  the  list  of  "  attraction."  The  data  are  too  meager  to  furnish  trust- 
worthy results;  besides,  the  question  is  of  no  practical  importance  to  classical 
Latin.  Cf.  p.  61.  The  habit  of  using  that  mood  to  express  cause  with  cum 
may  have  had  its  beginning  before  the  time  of  Terence.  Besides,  the  examples 
here  in  question  contain  a  strong  suggestion  of  "  remonstrance." 
«Cf.  p.  26. 


Eud.  1261,  dum  .  .  .  censeret 
.  .  .  ipsus  esset. 

Bacch.  488,*  si  uellem  plus 
uiderem  quam  deceret, 

Poen.  681,  uidere  uos  uellem 
quom  aurum  darem. 


qui. 


^tM. 


quam, 
uL 

quo, 

quantum, 

quom. 


qui. 


THE    USES   OP   THE   CONSTRUCTION,    TABLES.  41 

(c)  Miscellaneous  examples  in  which  the  two  verbs  refer  to  different 

Ume-spheres. 
Heaut.  953,  non  auderet  facere 
quae  fecit;  Adel,  314,  produxit; 
Cist.  506,  dedi;  Most,  202,  dedi; 
True.  349,  dedit;  Capt.  705,  dor 
bam;  Eun.^  606,  simulabar. 

Group  VI. 
In  which  the  main  verb  is  in  the  subjunctive  op  assumption. 
(a)  A  verb  in  the  present  tense  depending  upon  a  ^'less  vivid  future 

condition,'' 


Bacch.  778,  ni  .  .  .  facta  cu- 
piam  quae  is  uelit, 

Trin.  472,  siquid  placeat  quod 
congestum  siet, 

Rud.  1150,  si  tantillum  pec- 
cassis  quod  postules. 


Capt.  906,  si  memorem  ea  quae 
conducunt;  M.  G.  1429,  scio; 
Rud.  978,  memoras;  Rud.  1021, 
quoiust;  Trin.  470,  uocant; 
Andr.  165,  uolo;  Phorm.  171,mt- 
hist;  Pacuuius  407,  euentura 
sunt;  Pers.  393,  damus. 

True.  324,  lauant 

Merc.  874,  properas;  Pers.  206, 
digna's;  Stich.  112,  censeo. 

Asin.  507,  praecipis. 

Lucil.  501,  petit, 

Caecil.  174,  qm)m  aduenis; 
Cato.  Frag.  J.  p.  58,  cum  ,  .  . 
ivbet. 


(6)  A  verb  in  a  past  tense  depending  upon  a ''less  vivid  future 

condition,'' 


Capt.  417,  si  memores  quae 
.  .  .  fecisti;  Bacch.  698,  dixit; 
Merc.  419,  emptast;  Andr.  142,  si 
ilium  obiurges  qui  iulit;  Cist 
187,  uiderat. 


Capt.  205,  si  .  .  .  solutos  sinat 
quos  .  .  .  emerit, 

Amph.  871,  quod  contraxerim 
si  .  .  .  expetat. 

Cure.  269,  si  .  .  .  nelint  qui 
periurauerint, 

Hec.  555,  si  is  posset  .  .  . 
qv/icum  consuesset, 

nn  this  sentence  the  verbs  are  in  the  same  tense  to  be  sure,  but  e««em 
refers  to  the  present,  which  of  course  simulahar  does  not 


42 


m. 


ATTBACTION   OF    MOOD   IN   EAELY   LATIN. 


(c)  Miscellaneous  eocamples  in  which  the  two  verbs  are  in  different 

tenses, 

Capt.  754,  absque  hoc  esset  qui        Bacch.  564,  nisi  cum  ilia  qvam 
hoc  fedt;  Trin.  967,  sunt  mortui.  mandassem  occiperes  amare. 
Pseud.  1236,  loqu£re, 
M.  G.  1083,  illest. 

Ghoup  VIL 

In  which  the  main  verb  is  in  the  subjunctive  of  result  or 

characteristic. 

(a)  Both  verbs  are  in  the  present  tense, 

Heaut.  76,  ut  cures  ea  quae  nil        Most.  173,  id  euenit  ut  deceat 
attinent;    Most.   396,   ut   facias    quidquid  habeas, 
quod    iubeo;    Eun.    396,    facio;        Merc.    1006,   arbitri    ut   sint 


Andr.  390,  sunt  certa;  Asin.  175, 
uolt;  Cure.  66,  nvilist. 


Adel.  823,  duo  cum  idem  fad» 
unt  saepe  ut  possis  dicera 


Adel.  39,  quid  sit  cafils  qtlam 
ipse  est  sibi. 

Pseud.  850,  ut  appareat  quo 
uenio. 


qui  praetereant. 

Merc.   840,   ubi   id  eripiatur 
quod  placeat. 

Bacch.  352,  ita  feci  .  .  .  quan- 
tum Jubeat  reddere  ut  reddat. 

Phorm.    153-4,    ut    qui  .  .  . 
uelit  patrem  ut  extimescam. 

Amph.  824,  absunt  testes  qui 
illud  quod  dicam  adsentiant. 

Aul.     791,    tam    parui    preti 
quom  pudeat  quin  purget. 

Asin.   945,   tam  ingenio   duro 
quin  ubi  .  .  .  sit  faciat  bene. 

Phorm.   154,  patrem  ut  exti- 
mescam ubi  ueniat. 

Hec.     608,     qui     vbiquomque 
opus  sit,  possit. 


Eun.  554,  qui  me  sequatur  quo- 
quo  earn. 

(6)  Both  verbs  in  the  imperfect  tense. 
Men.  20,  ut  non  posset  qu^e        Amph.  47,  ut  exprobraret  .  .  . 


mammam  dabat;  Pers.  261,  qui 
daret  quoius  ingenium  nouerat.   t 


quod  faceret. 

Aul.  740,  ut  id  quod  non  tuom 
esset  tangeres. 

Bacch.  352,  feci  ut  auri  quan^ 
turn  u^llet  sumeret. 


^i. 


ut. 


quom. 


ubi. 

quando. 


quocwnque. 


THE   USES   OF   THE   CONSTRUCTION,    TABLES. 


43 


(c)  The  dependent  verb  is  not  in  the  same  tense  as  the  main  verb. 


Poen.  21,  qui  dormierunt  decet 
.  .  .  stent;  Naeuius  58;  opus  est. 

Pers.  825,  faciebat. 

Hec.  150,  accepi;  Eun.  870, 
studui. 


Capt.  467,  nee  uidi  quoi  minus 
procedat  quicquid  facere  occe- 
perit. 


Capt.  473,  qui  .  .  .  quom  ede- 
rint  reddant  domi. 

Trin.  621,  quoi  tuam  quom  rem 
credideris  sine  .  .  .  eura  dormias. 

M.  G.  742,  quin  ubi  triduom 
.  .  .  fuerit,  iam  odiosus  siet. 

Trin.  699,  ut  vbi  adstrinxeris 
.  .  .  atque  dederis  .  .  .  nee  sit 
.  .  .  effugias. 

Pseud.  725,  qui  quando  prin- 
cipium  prehenderit  .  .  .  teneat. 

Hec.   859,  ut  uoluptati  .  .  . 
aduentus    tuos    quoqttomque   ad' 
ueneris  .  .  .  sit. 


quu 


Ul, 


Group  VIII. 

In  which  the  main  verb  is  in  the  subjunctive  of  indirect 

question. 

(a)  Both  verbs  are  in  the  present  tense. 


Asin.  27,  quid  sit  quod  scire 
expeiis  eloquere;  Men.  972,  sunt; 
M.  G.  1012,  quaeris;  Pseud.  216, 
loquor;  Pseud.  451,  renuntiant; 
Trin.  257,  eget;  Naeuius,  60, 
times. 


Aul.  800,  praedico;  Bacch.  400, 
oportet. 


Cas.  572,  adsitne  ei  .  .  .  qu^m 
aduocet, 

Cato,  E.  E.  2,  possitne  quae 
reliqua  sint  conficere. 

Trin.  210,  falsone  an  uero  cul- 
pent  quem  uelint. 

Poen.  92,  quid  id  sit  hominis 
quoi  Lyco  nomen  siet. 

Trin.  306,  utrum  itane  esse 
mauelit  ut  .  .  .  censeat  an  .  .  . 
ut  ,  ,  ,  uelint. 


44 


ATTBACTION   OF   MOOD   IN   EABLT   LATIN. 


(b)  Verbs  in  a  past  tense  depending  upon  verbs  in  the  same  tense. 


M.  G.  97,  quo  modo  denenerim 
.  .  .  quoi  seruiui;  M.  G.  345-6, 
utnim  egon  id  quod  uidi  uiderim; 
Bud.  1310,  penit. 


Amph.  1016,  exquirere  quis 
fuerit  quern  propter  corpus  .  .  . 
compleuerit. 

M.  G.  261,  qui  fuerit  .  .  .  qui 
sit  sectatus. 

Mer.  623,  quae  facies  foret  qui 
illam  emisset. 


(c)  The  dependent  verb  is  not  in  the  same  tense  as  the  main  verb, 
Amph.    106,    quantus    amator        Aul.  29,  is  scit  quae  sit  quam 


siet  quod  complacitumst;    Cure. 
630,  elusit;  Trin.  7,  ahiit;  Hec. 
732,  iussi;  Hec.  873,  feci;  Andr. 
525,  dixit, 
Aul.  65,  condidi. 


compresserit. 


Heaut.  2,  sunt 
Eun.  522,  perii. 


Ai4  111  coepi  obseruari  ecqui 
maiorem  filius  mihi  honorem 
haberet  quam  eius  habuisset  pater. 


CHAPTEE  III. 

The  Uses  of  the  Construction,  Limitations. 

Some  of  the  conclusions  to  be  drawn  from  these  comparative 
lists  are  obvious.  Mechanical  attraction  is  of  relatively  rare  oc- 
currence  in  Early  Latin.  Even  when  the  dependent  verb  is  in 
the  same  tense  as  the  governing  clause,  very  little  emphasis  is 
needed  to  prevent  assimilation.  In  fact,  only  about  thirty-five  per 
cent  of  the  verbs  closely  attached  to  a  verb  in  the  subjunctive  are 
found  m  the  same  mood,  and  more  than  half  of  these  belong  to  the 
class  which  seemed  in  the  preceding  discussion  to  be  influenced  to 
a  great  extent  by  the  anticipatory  subjunctive.  It  is  impossible, 
however,  to  give  absolutely  accurate  ratios,  since,  as  will  appear 
later,  it  is  not  often  possible  to  fix  in  either  class  the  verbs  con- 
nected  with  conjunctions  that  may  take  either  the  indicative  or 
the  subjunctive.  Such  conjunctions  are,  for  instance,  pnusqiMtn 
dum  and  si  in  early  Latin. 

By  a  closer  analysis  of  the  lists  of  examples  given  above,  we 
may  discover  to  some  extent  the  conditions  under  which  the  habit 
of  attraction  began  to  spread,  or,  the  converse,  the  conditions  under 
which  the  new  construction  did  not  thrive.  The  following  conclu- 
sions are  based  not  only  upon  the  examples  of  mechanical  attrac- 
tion, but  on  the  examples  discussed  in  chap.  I,  as  well ;  for  it  is 
obviously  impossible  to  state  in  every  case  whether  the  subjunctive 
is  entirely  or  merely  in  part  due  to  the  force  of  mechanical 
attraction. 

1.  The  Time  and  Tense  of  the  Dependent  Clause, 
The  most  important  element  is  that  of  time,  as  has  been  implied 
by  the  classification  itself.  To  be  sure,  this  is  not  of  equal  import- 
ance in  aU  constructiorns.  So,  for  instance,  attention  has  been  called 
to  the  fact  that  a  break  in  time-sphere  does  not  affect  the  mood 
of  clauses  in  dependence  upon  subjunctives  of  surprise,  remon- 
strance, or  indignation.     Of  course,  conditional  and  independent 

45 


46 


ATTKACTION    OF   MOOD   IN    EABLY   LATIN. 


expressions  of  wish  also  present  abnormal  situations  as  regards 
tense.  Tabulating  the  rest  with  fefei«iiot  to  the  time  relationship 
which  exists  between  the  dependent  and  the  governing  verb,  we 
find  the  following  ratios  of  verbs  attracted  to  those  not  attracted: 

Subjunctive.        Indicative. 

Verbs  in  the  future  depending  upon  other  verbs  in  the 

future»  (pp.  16-24) 124  71 

Other  verbs  depending  upon  verbs  in  the  same  time-ephere  10  10 
Verbs  in  the  present  depending  upon  verbs  in  the  future.  49  162 
Verbs  in  the  perfect  depending  upon  verbs  in  the  future. .  16  64 
Other  verbs  depending  upon  verbs  not  in  the  same  time- 
sphere  2  27 

2.  The  Position  op  the  Dependent  Clause. 

The  position  of  the  dependent  clause  is  also  found  to  be  a  fac- 
tor. A  sentence  may  well  open  with  a  subordinate  clause,  even 
when  the  speaker's  mind  has  not  yet  clearly  given  the  exact  shade 
of  meaninfto  the  main  verb  Jth  which  It  is  finally  uttered. 
Thus  in  shaping  a  sentence  like  the  following: 

Bud.  485,  Qui  homo  sese  miserum  et  mgndicMm  uolet, 
Neptuno  credat  sese, 

the  mind  may  well  have  conceived  the  relative  clause  in  entirety, 
before  it  had  any  definite  feeling  in  regard  to  the  main  verb.  In 
like  manner  the  dependent  clause  may  be  forming  when  the  main 
verb  has  already  been  uttered  and  its  modal  tone  is  growing  indis- 
tinct, as  may  be  the  case  in  sentences  like  the  following : 

Lucil.  440,  Ut  ego  effugiam  quod  te  imprimis  cupere  apisci 
intellego. 

Sometimes  the  dependent  verb  is  attracted,  though  it  precedes 
the  main  verb ;  very  often  when  it  follows.  The  favorite  position, 
however,  seems  to  be  between  the  subjunctive  verb  and  its  intro- 
ductory word,  when  this, — like  ut,  ne,  etc.,  or  any  verb,  like  per- 
s\mdeo,  which  calls  for  a  subjunctive  clause, — signals  the  approach 
«f  a  subjunctive.     A  case  in  point  is: 

Andr.  424,  I  nunciam  intro  ne  in  mora  quom  opus  sit  sies. 

■This  term  "future"  refers,  of  course,  not  only  to  the  future  and  future- 
perfect  tenses,  but  also  to  many  of  the  verbs  in  the  present  indicative  and  to 
very  many  verbs  of  the  present  subjunctive — especially  those  of  the  voUtive 
aubjunctive. 


THE   USES   OP   THE   CONSTEUCTION,   LIMITATIONS.  47 

In  sentences  containing  independent  subjunctives,  and  in  many 
conditional  periods  and  in  indirect  questions,  there  is  usuaUy  no 
possibility  of  a  central  position  for  a  dependent  clause,  but  the 
following  table  will  show  the  relative  importance,  under  normal 
conditions,  of  the  three  positions  mentioned : 

(When  the  dependent  clause  lies  before  the  governing  subjunc- 
tive and  precedes  all  sign  of  its  coming,  it  may  be  said  to  be  in 
the  first  posUwn.  The  second  position  is  the  central  one  just  iUua- 
trated.  The  third  position  is  that  in  which  the  clause  lies  after 
tne  governing  verb.) 


Subjunctive 
Indicative 


5 
U 


td  Pontion. 
88 

87 


SdPiuUion. 
73 
138 


It  appears  that  the  central  position  claims  fifty-five  per  cent 
of  the  attracted  verbs,  while  only  a  third  of  those  not  attracted  are 
m  that  place. 

The  dependent  clause  is  occasionally  found  between  the  intro- 
ductory  conjunction  and  ijs  verb,  in  conditional  clauses  like  the 
lollowmg: 

Pers.  206,  si  ut  digna's  f aciant,  odio  hercle  habeant, 
and  m  imprecations  and  expressions  of  wish,  as  in: 

Aul.  785,  ut  ilium  di  immortales  omnes  deaeque  quantumst  pei^ 
duint ; 

but  instances  of  this  kind  are  not  very  numerous.  The  data  in 
regard  to  the  position  of  verbs  depending  upon  independent  voli- 
tive  and  optative  sentences  and  upon  conditional  clauses  and 
clauses  of  ideal  certainty  are  as  follows : 


Subjunctive 
Indicative 


IttPoHtion. 

23 


td  Position, 
15 

34 


SdPoHtioH. 
24 
78 


3.  Pkecision  in  Tense  and  Modal  Feeling. 

When  precision  in  certain  respects  is  required,  the  dependent 
verb  is  seldom  attracted. 

(a)  As  regards  time,  the  present  subjunctive  may  stand  for  a 
present  or  a  future  indicative,  and  therefore  is  often  of  itself 
somewhat  ambiguous.  In  the  same  way,  the  imperfect  subjunc- 
tive may  be  confusing  in  that  it  represents  an  imperfect  indicative 
or  a  future  thrown  into  the  past.     It  may  be  for  the  sake  of  avoid- 


48 


ATTBAOtilMf   OF    MOOD    IN    EABLY   LATIN. 


ing  this  possible  ambiguity  tBat  fti  I^W»  indicative  occurs  in  a 
few  sentences  like  the  following : 

Bacch.  989,  Volo  ut  quod  iubebo  facias. 
and  the  present  indicative  in  many  sentences  like  this : 

M.  G.  1054,  Age,  ...  fiat  quod  te  oro. 
In  the  same  way,  the  imperfect  indicative  (cupiebam)  in  the  fol- 
lowing prevents  the  interpretation  of  the  verb  as  a  past  future  of 
a  generalizing  clause,  which  would  have  been  possilte  if  the  verb 
had  become  imperfect  subjunctive  by  attraction: 

Eun.  574,  Ut  essem  una  quacum  cupiebam. 
It  is  at  least  true  that  no  verb  in  Early  Latin  is  attracted  if  it  is 
modified  by  a  temporal  adverb  which  refers  to  a  time  differing 
from  that  of  the  governing  clause.     Cf . : 

Andr.  339,  ubi  inueniam  Pamphilum 

ut  metum  in  quo  nunc  est  adimam? 

(h)  Further,  the  indicative  must  obviously  stand  when  precision 
in  modal  feeling  is  called  for.  So  often  does  the  tone  of  the  gov- 
erning clause  penetrate  to  the  dependent  verb  that  the  mind  is 
continually  expecting  to  find  it  there.  In  a  great  number  of  cases, 
though  it  is  not  definitely  called  for,  it  matters  little  if  there  is 
a  shading  of  it ;  but  often  it  is  very  essential  to  state  a  plain  fact 
which  is  wholly  devoid  of  the  volitive,  optative  or  conditional  atti- 
tude of  the  governing  verb.  The  terms  "integral  part"  or 
*<  essential  part "  are  ambiguous  for  the  reason  that  they  ignore 
considerations  of  this  nature.  A  clause  may  be  functionally  an 
integral  part  of  its  sentence,  and  essential  to  its  meaning  without 
having  its  mood.  On  the  other  hand,  if  these  terms  are  used  with 
the  understanding  that  they  convey  the  modal  and  temporal  feel- 
ing of  the  main  sentence,  such  use  ignores  the  fact  of  mechanical 
attraction.  The  following  sentence  will  illustrate  what  I  mean 
in  speaking  of  precision  in  mood  secured  by  the  indicative : 

Pers.  2t)3,  Di  deaeque  me  omnes  perdant — 1 1 
eueniant  nolo  tibi  quae  optas. 

Quae  optas  refers  definitely  to  the  prayer  just  uttered.  A  sub- 
junctive here  would  have  been  ambiguous,  as  it  might  have  been 
equivalent  to  the  above  if  attracted,  or  could  have  been  understood 
as  partaking  of  the  optative  nature  of  eueniant,  or  as  conditional 


THE   USES   OF   THE   CONSTEFCTION,    LIMITATIONS.  49 

In  fact  both  of  these  points  are  well  illustrated  by  a  number  of 
sentences  m  which  the  contrast  of  time  and  of  modal  feeling  is 
brought  out  by  contrasting  a  subjunctive  verb  with  the  indicative 
of  the  same  verb.     See  the  following: 

Trin.  351,  Quod  habes  ne  habeas  et  illuc  quod  non  habes  habeas. 
Aul.  482,  Et  inuidia  nos  minore  utamur  quam  utimur 

Et  illae  malam  rem  metuant  quam  metuont  magis 
Et  nos  minore  sumptu  simus  quam  sumus. 
(c)  In  fact,  as  any  contrast  necessarily  calls  for  an  explicit 
statement  of  the  contrasted  parts,  wherever  such  a  condition  pre- 
vails  there  is  less  likelihood  of  attraction.     So  in  the  follo^ng 
there  18  a  contrast  between  the  subjects  tu  and  ego: 

Trin.  341,  Non  eo  haec  dico  quin  quae  tu  uis  ego  uelim. 
A  contrast  of  this  kind  may  be  brought  out  by  some  other  word 
in  the  sentence,  as  by  pariter  in  the  following: 

Cap.  329,  Nunc  hoc  animum  aduorte  ut  ea  quae  sentio  panter 
SCI  as. 

or  by  the  tone  of  the  context,  as  in  the  following: 
Trin.  979,  Dum  ille  ne  sis  quem  ego  esse  nolo. 

4.  The  Function  of  the  Dependent  Clause. 
A  comparison  of  the  determinative  with  the  generalizing  clauses 
will  prove  that  the  readiness  with  which  a  verb  is  attracted  de- 
pends to  a  great  extent  on  the  function  of  its  clause  as  a  part  of 
the  sentence.     The  determinative  clause  is  necessarily  precise  in 
Its  statements.     It  aims  at  accuracy  in  the  expression  of  its  modal 
and  temporal  feeling,  and  is  apt  to  possess  a  peculiar  emphasis 
from  this  fact     In  dependence  upon  a  volitive  or  optative  verb  it 
IS  therefore  likely,  by  remaining  in  the  indicative,  to  deny  that  it 
partakes  m  any  respect  of  the  tone  of  the  governing  verb;  and  in 
subjunctive  conditional  sentences,  where  the  Eoman  was  so  prone 
to  cast  the  shadow  of  the  ideal  even  over  clauses  which  expressed 
facts  generally  known  to  be  true,  the  determinative  clause  is  much 
less  frequently  attracted  than  is  the  generalizing  clause.     Con- 
trast,  for  example,  the  following,  which  is  determinative: 

Rud.  978,  si  istuc  ius  sit  quod  memoras,  piscatores  perierint, 
with  this,  which  is  generalizing: 


60 


JifUlACTION   OF   MOOD   IN    EABLY   LATIN. 


Bacch.  7T8,  ni  meum 

Gnatum  tam  amem  atque  ei  facta  cupiam  qtuie  is 

uelit  .  .  . 
tua  iam  uirgis  latera  lacerentOT. 

An  examination  of  the  attracted  verbs  which  refer  to  the  present, 
while  in  dependence  upon  volitive,  optative,  potential,  or  condi- 
tional clauses  in  the  present  subjunctive,  will  show  that  even 
though  they  are  determining  rather  than  generalizing,  and  are  to 
be  interpreted  as  referring  definitely  to  the  present  in  connection 
with  the  events  spoken  of  in  the  rest  of  the  sentence  in  which  they 
are  found,  they  will,  with  but  few  exceptions,  allow  of  an  ideal 
interpretation  which  removes  them  from  the  sphere  of  a  deter- 
mined time  or  circumstance.  They  are  Hf  the  type  illustrated  by 
the  following: 

Amph.  630,  memor  sum  et  diligens  ut  quae  imperes  compareant, 
in  which,  to  be  sure,  quae  imperes  refers  to  the  commands  just 
being  given,  but  may  in  a  larger  sense  mean  "  whatever  commands 
you  give  "  or  "  shall  give."  So  in  M.  G.  1230,  (oro)  quod  cupiam 
ne  grauetur,  qu>od  cupiam  seems  to  refer  to  the  wishes  just  ex- 
pressed, but  may  here  be  conceived  of  as  a  part  of  a  general  prayer, 
"  May  not  Venus  begrudge  my  wishes !  '*  Contrast  the  more  defi- 
nite statement: 

Hec.  674,  cogis  ea  quae  nolo  ut  praesente  hoc  loquar. 

My  point  then  is  that  such  clauses,  while  actually  serving 
in  their  proper  context  as  determinative  clauses,  are  also  given  a 
form  which  suggests  a  general  meaning  of  universal  application, 
much  as  the  universal  presents  in  conditional  sentences  may  be  so 
expressed  as  to  serve  as  such,  while  at  the  same  time  they  adapt 
themselves  to  the  feeling  of  the  sentence  in  which  they  are  found. 
Cf.  Tusc.  Disp.,  Ill,  35 :  Diceres  aliquid  et  magno  quidem  philoso- 
pho  dignum,  si  ea  bona  esse  sentires,  quae  essent  (i.  e,,  sunt) 
homine  dignissima. 

5.  The  Temporal  Versus  the  Eelative  Clauses. 
The  temporal  clauses  in  Early  Latin,  when  attached  to  a  sub- 
junctive, are  found  in  the  same  mood  more  frequently  in  propor- 
tion to  the  number  of  occurrences,  than  the  relative  clauses  under 
the  same  condition.     There  are  a  great  number  referring  to  the 


the  uses  of  the  construction,  limitations.  61 

future,  of  the  nature  discussed  under  the  anticipatory,  and  we 
saw  that  these  were  as  a  rule  subjunctive,  if  conditions  were  not 
unfavorable.  This  very  fact  would  naturally  give  a  strong  im- 
petus  to  attraction  in  the  temporal  clauses  in  particular.  Before 
pving  the  general  table,  I  would  point  out  the  more  important 
habits  of  some  of  the  individual  temporal  connectives. 

Cum.— I  have  attributed  the  subjunctive  with  cum,   eleven 
times  to  the  inherent  feeling  of  surprise,  indignation,  etc.  (see  pp. 
«-11),  three  times  to  the  necessities  of  its  service  as  a  past-future 
(see  p.  12),  forty-three  times  to  its  future  force  after  a  subjunc- 
tive (see  pp.  16-21),  ten  times  to  a  more  mechanical  attraction. 
After  a  subjunctive,  the  cum  temporal  clause  has  been  found 
in  the  future  indicative  twelve  times,  in  the  present  indicative 
seven  times,  and  in  the  perfect  indicative  twice.     We  have  found 
the  verb  with  cum-causal  attracted  five  times,  and  unattracted 
seven  times;  I  would,  however,  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  the 
causal  connection  is  not  functionally  a  close  one,  as  is  seen  in  the 
case  of  the  numerous  loosely  attached  qui-causal  clauses.     Adding 
to  this  consideration  the  interesting  fact  that  the  quando<;ausal 
clause,  out  of  fifteen  opportunities,  is  not  once  attracted  in  Plau- 
tus  and  Terence,  I  would  suggest  that  the  word  attraction  must 
not  be  employed  too  frequently  as  a  waste-basket,  in  attempting 
to  remove  troublesome  subjunctive  cum-clauses  from  Early  Latin. 
The  following  verbs  after  cum  I  have  classed  with  perfect  subjunc- 
tives rather  than  future  perfect  indicatives  after  comparing  their 
nature  and  position  with  those  te  which  no  doubt  is  attached : 

Men.  543,  ut  te  lubenter  uideam  quom  ad  nos  ueneris. 
Trin.  621,  Capt  434,  True.  234,  Capt.  473,  Eun.  933,  Hec.  694. 
The  following,  I  think,  are  indicative:  Cas.   130,  Heaut.  557, 
Phorm.  185. 

Quando.— This  conjunction  does  not  seem  te  be  used  in  Terence 
as  purely  temporal.^  The  statistics  which  are  found  below  re- 
garding this  conjunction  apply,  therefore,  mainly  to  Plautus.  As 
verbs  after  qmindo-causal  are  not  found  to  be  attracted,  I  have 
not  even  placed  the  non-attracted  indicatives  of  this  class  in  my 
tables,  but  for  the  sake  of  completeness  give  a  list  of  them  here : 
Capt.  12,  Men.  834,  M.  G.  1269,  Bacch.  445,  Poen.  815,  Eud. 

» Cf.  p.  Scherer,  De  Particula  Quando,  Studemund  Studien,  II,  p.  130. 


52 


ATTRACTION    OF   MOOD   IN    EARLY   LATIN. 


1182,  Adel.  877,  Adel.  201,  Adel.  287.  In  the  following,  which 
belong  to  the  same  class,  the  conjunction  is  quandoquidem :  Mer. 
170,  Trin.  351,  Trin.  991,  Eun.  373,  Andr.  487,  Hec.  490.  As 
vhi  and  the  remaining  temporal  conjunctions  show  no  marked  pe- 
culiarities, it  will  be  sufficient  to  refer  to  the  table  given  below 
for  the  facts  regarding  them. 

The  following  is  a  synopsis  which  will  give  as  fairly  as  can  be 
done  the  comparative  frequency  of  attraction  in  the  temporal  and 
relative  clauses.  It  summarizes  the  said  clauses  which  are  tabu- 
lated in  the  collections  of  pp.  16-44,  omitting  the  clauses  in  which 
the  causal  or  adversative  force  predominates. 


Subjunctive 
Indicative 


eum, 
57 


17 
IS 


quando, 

9 
6 


Subjunctive 
Indicative 


vbicumqtte  qtuim 

Ut,        utcumqut.  quotient,  primum. 

3  2 

2  2 

Stkaive  clauses, 
104 
269 


Total. 


4S 


The  proportion  of  subjunctives  in  these  temporal  clauses  as 
compared  with  the  subjunctives  in  relative  clauses  is  thus  seen  to 
be  about  five  to  one. 

A  few  words  of  explanation  are  also  needed  in  regard  to  the 
behavior  of  the  conjunctions  conunonly  used  with  the  anticipatory 
subjunctive. 

Dum. — It  is  not  within  the  scope  of  this  paper  to  decide  when 
dum  takes  the  subjunctive  because  of  its  own  force  without  regard 
to  its  position,  and  I  have  thought  it  sufficient  to  call  attention  to 
the  fact  that  the  mood  of  the  main  clause  must  be  reckoned  with, 
for  which  purpose  I  have  tabulated  the  uses  of  dum  in  Eafly  Liliii 
with  the  present  and  future  tenses. 


IndicatiTe. 

SubjunctiTe. 

AJUr 

After 

After 

AJter 

indicativt. 

sutjuncHm* 

indicative. 

subjunctive. 

Dum  = 

present 

124 

li 

0 

3 

while  and  as  » 

1                        long  as 

future 

11 

i 

2 

9 

'1                       z=^  until 

future 

18 

6 

9 

9 

This  table  does  not  take  into  account  clauses  in  indirect  discourse 
or  in  dependence  upon  infinitives. 

Of  chief  interest  is  the  behavior  of  dum  =  until.     After  seeing 
how  the  indicative  predominates  after  this  conjunction,  and  that  it 


THE    USES    OF    THE    CONSTRUCTION,    LIMITATIONS. 


53 


keeps  six  verbs  out  of  attraction,  it  is  impossible  to  say  that  all  of 
the  subjunctive  examples  are  due  to  the  regular  habit  of  dum  = 
until  to  take  that  mood.  Since,  however,  it  was  impossible  to 
call  any  of  them  undoubted  instances  of  attraction,  I  have  not 
admitted  any  of  this  kind  into  my  tables  in  Chapter  II.  For  the 
sake  of  completeness,  I  shall  give  a  list  here  of  the  nine  which 
are  subjunctive  and  depend  upon  other  subjunctives.  They  are: 
Cist.  782,  M.  G.  1249,  True.  482,  Andr.  980,  Pseud.  1234,  Cure. 
526,  Rud.  328,  Rud.  1190,  Trin.  757. 

A  rule  is  sometimes  found  in  the  handbooks  stating  that  cer- 
tain conjunctions  which  are  used  with  both  moods  avoid  attrac- 
tion in  order  to  prevent  confusion,  and  that  dum  is  one  of  these. 
A  glance  at  the  table  will  show  that  so  far  was  Early  Latin  from 
thus  distinguishing  between  dum  =  until  and  its  other  uses,  that 
there  are  as  many  instances  (14)  of  dum  =  while  in  the  subjunc- 
tive as  of  the  avoidance  of  attraction  by  the  same  particle.  We 
have  seen  (p.  13)  that  all  the  evidence  seems  rather  to  point  to  a 
survival  of  an  early  anticipatory  subjunctive  use,  even  with  this 
meaning,  when  the  verb  refers  to  the  future. 

Priusquam  presents  some  of  the  same  difficulties  as  dum,  because 
even  when  it  stands  free,  it  takes  the  subjunctive  at  times.  It  is, 
however,  safe  to  say  that  a  just  share  of  the  subjunctives  which 
are  in  dependence  upon  other  verbs  of  that  mood  should  be  attrib- 
uted to  the  growing  habit  of  attraction,  since  priusquam  in  Early 
Latin,  when  standing  free,  takes  the  indicative  far  more  frequently 
than  the  subjunctive.  Priusquam  does  not  seem  to  take  the  sub- 
junctive in  Terence.^  I  therefore  feel  safe  in  attributing  the  mood 
of  Eun.  751  to  the  influence  of  the  main  verb.  The  passages  in 
doubt  are:  Rud.  456,  Men.  846,  Mer.  1015,  Aul.  154,  Epid.  277, 
True.  523,  Pseud.  1031,  Bacch.  175,  Trin.  886. 

6.  Adverbial  versus  Adjectival  Clauses. 
A  further  reason  for  the  preponderance  of  the  subjunctive  in 
temporal  clauses  is  that  these  are  usually  adverbial  clauses  and 
as  such  generally  depend  more  closely  upon  the  governing  verb 
than  do  relative  clauses,  which  are,  as  a  rule,  attached  to  the  sub- 
ject or  object  of  the  verb.     Similarly,  it  is  obvious  that  relative 

iCf.  Lange,  p.  36.  Adel.  583  is  an  example  of  the  second  singular  gen- 
eralizing subjunctive. 


54 


ATTBACTION    OF   MOOD   IN    EABLT   LATIN. 


clauses  in  dependence  upon  the  object  of  the  verb  are  more  closely 
connected  with  that  verb  than  those  which  are  attached  to  the 
subject,  and  are  in  consequence  more  likely  to  be  attracted,  as  is 
proved  by  the  table  hereto  appended.  This  table  includes  only 
such  examples  as  depend  directly  upon  the  subject,  verb  or  object. 


Subjunctive 
Indicative 


In  Dependenet 
upon  the  Subject 

26 
60 


Upon  the 

Verb. 

114 
70 


Upon  the 
Object. 

64 
122 


Fifty-six  per  cent,  of  the  subjunctires  are  m  clauses  which  depend 
directly  upon  the  verb,  whereas  but  twenty-eight  per  cent,  of  the 
indicatives  are  in  such  clauses. 

It  is  no  doubt  the  failure  to  make  this  fundamental  distinction 
which  has  led  grammarians  into  the  erroneous  conclusion  that  the 
indicative  is  kept  in  "circumlocutions  equivalent  to  a  substan- 
tive," a  statement  which  not  only  fails  to  give  the  real  reason  for 
the  actual  phenomena,  but  even  misstates  the  facts  in  the  case. 
A  very  considerable  number  of  clauses  of  this  kind  are  in  fact 
attracted.     See,  for  example,  the  following: 

Men.  994,  Caue  quisquam  quod  illic  minitetur  nostrum  flocci 
fecerit  (quod  minitetur  =  minas  eius). 

Eun.  1026,  ut  .  .  .  faciam  quod  iubeat  (quod  iubeat  =  iussa 
eius). 
Add  to  these  Phorm.  125,  Trin.  211,  Bacdi.  788,  Trin.  715,  Eun. 
790  and  many  others.  It  is  not  true,  therefore,  flat  verbs  of 
this  kind  are  never  attracted.  However,  the  majority  are  not,  and 
the  real  cause  of  this  fact  is  that  such  clauses  usually  modify  the 
subject  or  object  of  the  sentence  or  modifiers  of  these,  and  are  not, 
therefore,  as  closely  bound  up  with  the  governing  verb  as  the  ad- 
verbial clauses  are.  In  fact,  the  table  just  given  shows  that  almost 
70  per  cent  of  such  clauses  after  subjunctive  verbs  remain  in  the 

indicative. 

Some  of  the  adverbial  clauses  present  diflSculties  which  call  for 
a  few  words  of  explanation. 

Sirclatises. — I  have  already  spoken  of  the  impossibility  of  mak- 
ing a  satisfactory  statement  in  regard  to  the  conditional  clauses, 
but  it  can  at  least  be  stated  with  certainty  that  the  ^t-clause  feels 
the  influence  of  the  mood  of  the  apodosis.     Rotheimer's*  collection 

«Dc  cnuntiatis  condicionaUbus  Plautinis,  1876,  pp.  42-7. 


THE    USES    OP    THE    CONSTEUCTION,    LIMITATIONS. 


55 


i 


of  the  conditional  sentences  of  Early  Latin  shows  that  when  there 
is  a  question  of  mixed  conditions,  the  si-clause  is  quite  regularly 
in  the  subjunctive  if  the  main  clause  is  an  apodosis  of  the  regular 
type  in  the  subjunctive.  There  are  but  thirteen  exceptions,  of 
which  the  following  is  an  illustration : 

Mer.  351,  si  dico  ut  res  est  .  .  .  quern  ad  modum  existumet 
me? 

This  fact  becomes  the  more  noteworthy  when  one  finds  that  129 
exceptions  occur  in  the  converse  type,  which  means  that  the  prin- 
cipal clause  of  the  conditional  sentence  is  very  often  indicative 
though  connected  with  a  subjunctive  protasis,  as  in: 

M.  G.  673,  siquid  sumas,  sumptus  est. 

This  contrast  certainly  points  to  assimilation  of  the  protasis  to 
the  mood  of  the  apodosis. 

I  find  it  impossible  to  be  more  explicit  than  this,  and  as  it  would 
be  useless  to  attempt  to  decide  in  particular  cases  whether  a  si- 
clause  is  attracted  or  not,  none  of  this  class  will  be  found  in  the 
tables. 

The  ut-  and  quamrclauses  of  comparison, — The  ut-clause  of  com- 
parison is  sometimes  said,  in  the  hand-books,  to  avoid  the  mood 
used  with  final-  and  consecuHve-ut,  for  the  sake  of  clearness.  It 
is  true  that  though  this  is  an  adverbial  clause,  it  is  not  often  at- 
tracted ;  but  I  doubt  whether  the  real  cause  of  the  fact  is  the  rea- 
son given.  This  clause  often  precludes  assimilation  by  its  very 
nature,  since,  as  has  been  pointed  out  (p.  49),  comparisons  and 
contrasts  naturally  tend  to  throw  emphasis  upon  the  verbs  juxta- 
posed, which  fact  entails  precision  in  expression  of  the  modal  and 
temporal  force.     Cf. : 

Merc.  874,  si  hue  item  properes  ut  istuc  properas  facias  rectius. 
But  this  consideration  is  equally  true  of  quam  in  comparisons 
and  all  other  comparative  and  contrasting  expressions.  The  fol- 
lowing may  represent  a  large  group  of  this  kind: 

True.  324,  si  proinde  amentur  mulieres  diu  quam  lauant. 

Again,  the  next  paragraph  will  show  that  many  of  these  clauses, 
adverbial  though  they  are,  depend  upon  adjectives  at  a  second  re- 
move from  the  verb  of  the  governing  clause.  These  two  reasons 
will  account  for  the  fact  that  such  clauses  are  not  attracted  as 
frequently  as  the  other  adverbial  clauses. 


56 


ATTBACTION   OW  llOOD   IN    EARLY   LATIN. 


In  Early  Latin  the  ut-clauses  are  found  to  be  attracted  four 
times  and  to  avoid  attraction  twenty-five  times.  With  quam  in 
comparisons  the  ratio  is  6  :  17. 

7.  The  Peoximity  of  the  Dependent  w»  the  Governing 

Clause. 
A  minuter  classification  must  now  be  made  in  order  to  deter- 
mine how  closely  the  dependent  clause  must  be  attached  to  the 
main  body  of  the  governing  clause,  in  order  to  be  attracted.  It 
has  appeared  in  the  above  that  not  only  may  those  verbs  be  al^ 
tracted  which  are  found  in  adverbial  clauses  and  in  direct  depend- 
ence upon  the  subjunctive  verb,  but  also  those  which  are  attached 
to  the  subject  or  object  of  the  same.  In  Early  Latin  this  state- 
ment is  not  to  be  understood  as  applying  to  clauses  after  ante- 
cedents complete  in  themselves,  which  remain  in  the  indicative 
(cf.  Cato  84,  uideto  ut  bene  percocas  medium,  ubi  altissimum 
est),  nor  to  any  of  the  loosely  attached  coordinate  relative  clauses, 
the  "  forward  moving  clauses,"  or  parenthetical  asides.  It  refers 
to  the  closely  attached  clause  which  is  necessary  to  complete  the 
meaning  of  the  antecedent  expressed  or  understood. 

1.  In  Early  Latin  the  relative  clause,  when  attached  to  the  sub- 
ject or  attribute  complemerd  of  the  sentence,  is  found  to  be  at- 
tracted under  the  following  conditions: 

(a)  When  the  antecedent  of  the  relative  is  not  expressed,  as  in 
Amph.  630,  diligens  ut  quae  imperes  compareant  (20  examples). 

(6)  When  the  antecedent  is  expressed  and  is  a  noun  or  sub- 
stantive adjective,  as  in  Most.  413,  uiri  doctist  opus  quae  dissig- 
nata  sint  .  .  .  tranquille  cuncta  ut  proueniant  (2  examples). 

(c)  When  the  antecedent  is  expressed  and  is  a  demonstrative 
pronoun,— is,  ille,  etc.,  as  in  Cure.  29,  ne  id  quod  ames  .  .  .  tibi 
sit  probro  (4  examples).  ,•    /    ir 

2.  Similarly  the  relative  clause  when  attached  to  the  object  ot 
the  verb  is  found  to  be  attracted: 

(a)  When  the  antecedent  is  not  expressed,  as  in  Epid.  6,  di 
dent  quae  uelis  (41  examples). 

(6)  When  the  antecedent  is  expressed  and  is  a  noun,  as  m  Cur. 
550,  tuom  qui  signum  ad  me  attulisset  nuntium  ne  spemerem 
(5  examples). 


THE   USES   OF   THE   CONSTRUCTION,    LIMITATIONS. 


67 


I 


(c)  When  the  antecedent  is  expressed  and  is  a  demonstrative 
pronoun.     Cf.  Lucil.  572,  concedat  id  quod  uelit  (18  examples). 

3.  It  may  also  be  attached  to  the  indirect  object  of  the  verb. 
Cf.  Pseud.  570,  det  locum  illi  qui  queat  (5  examples). 

4.  Or  to  the  object  of  a  complementary  infinitive  depending 
upon  the  subjunctive  verb,  or  forming  its  subject.  Cf.  Aul.  600, 
quod  iubeat  properet  persequi;  and  Mer.  152,  ut  quae  scirem 
scire  actutum  tibi  liceret  (5  examples). 

5.  Or  to  a  substantive  in  an  adverbial  clause  which  modifies 
the  predicate,  as  in  Hec.  491,  exopto  ut  relicuam  uitam  exigat 
cum  eo  uiro  me  qui  sit  fortunatior.     So  also  Cist.  85. 

6.  As  regards  the  adverbial  clauses,  the  larger  part  of  these 

(a)  (114)  depend  directly  upon  the  governing  verb,  usually  by 
means  of  a  temporal  conjunction,  as  in 

Pseud.  307,  quando  nil  sit,  simul  amare  desinat 

We  have  already  shown  (p.  50)  that  this  is  the  chief  reason 

why  so  large  a  proportion  of  temporal  clauses  suffer  attraction. 
Furthermore,  many  adverbial  clauses  are  attracted  which  are 

not  directly  attached  to  the  verb,  but 

(b)  depend  upon  some  modifier  of  the  subject,  as 

Pers.  237,  Numquam  .  .  .  exterebrabis  tu  ut  sis  peior  quam 
ego  siem.     Cf.  True  96. 

(c)  Or  of  the  object.     Cf.  Hec.  729, 

uidendumst  ne  minus  propter  iram  hinc  impetrem  quam  pos- 
siem.     Cf.  Pers.  340. 

(d)  Or  which  depend  upon  a  second  adverbial  modifier  of  the 
predicate,  as  in  Rud.  1243,  ut  cum  maiore  dote  abeat  quam 
aduenerit     Cf.  Bacch.  488;  Hec.  555;  Aul.  17. 

It  is  worthy  of  note  that  the  last  three  classes  contain  for  the 
most  part  adverbial  clauses  of  comparison  with  quam,  and  that 
many  of  these  clauses  are  of  necessity  far  removed  grammatically 
from  the  governing  verb,  and  therefore  remain  in  the  indicative. 
On  the  other  hand,  it  is  readily  seen  that  in  a  sentence  like  the 
last  one  cited  (Rud.  1243)  the  dependent  verb  aduenerit,  even 
though  a  second  remove  from  abeat  grammatically,  is,  in  simi- 
larity of  function  and  in  position,  very  near  to  it;  considerations 
which  probably  weigh  as  heavily  as  that  of  grammatical  prox- 
imity  in  determining  the  mood  of  the  verb. 


58 


ATTRACTION    OF    MOOD    IN    EARLY    LATIN. 


SUMMAEY    AND    CONCLUSION. 

The  first  part  of  this  paper  makes  an  attempt  (1)  to  explain 
the  origin  and  (2)  to  describe  the  growth  of  the  construction  of 
modal  attraction.  (1)  It  endeavors  to  show  that  from  several 
constructions  (enumerated  on  p.  7)  in  which  the  dependent  clause 
contained  the  modal  force  of  the  governing  clause,  the  tendency 
arose  which  was  the  source  of  the  construction  of  modal  attraction. 
(2)  It  attempts  to  describe  how  this  beginning  developed  by  the 
law  of  analogy  into  a  habit  of  placing  dependent  clauses  in  the 
subjunctive  when  attached  to  clauses  of  that  mood. 

The  second  part  of  the  paper,  after  giving  a  complete  list  of 
the  clauses  in  dependence  upon  subjunctives  in  early  Latin,  at- 
tempts to  define  the  limits  of  the  field  into  which  the  construction 
in  question  spread  in  that  period,  and  to  point  out  the  obstacles 
which  80  limited  it.  This  discussion  shows  with  more  definiteness 
than  can  be  reproduced  in  a  general  statement,  (1)  that  the  at- 
tracted clause  is  preferably  in  the  same  time-sphere  as  the  clause 
on  which  it  depends;  (2)  that  its  favorite  position  is  between  the 
introductory  conjunction  (when  such  exists)  and  the  verb  of  the 
governing  clause;  (3)  that  its  verb  rarely  expresses  precise  modal 
and  temporal  force ;  (4)  that  the  clause  as  a  whole  is  rather  of 
the  generalizing  than  of  the  determinative  type;  (5)  that  it  is 
more  frequently  a  temporal  than  a  relative  clause;  (6)  that  it  is 
connected  with  the  predicate  more  frequently  than  with  the  sub- 
ject or  object  of  the  sentence,  and  (7)  that,  as  a  rule,  it  is  an 
essential  clause,  and  grammatically  depends  very  closely  upon 
the  main  body  of  the  clause  to  which  it  is  attached. 

The  above,  I  think,  are  practically  all  and  the  only  statements 
of  importance  that  can  be  made  regarding  the  limitations  of  its 
uses  in  Early  Latin.  It  is  sometimes  said^  that  under  given  con- 
ditions a  clause  is  inevitably  attracted.  On  the  contrary,  I  be- 
lieve that  the  comparative  tables  given  above  and  the  discussion 
of  the  same  have  made  it  evident  that  attraction  is  never  abso- 

iSo  for  example  Riemann  ct  Goelzer  (Gram.  Comp.,  p.  724) :  Cos  oi^  le 
BuhjoncHf  est  ohligatoire.—he  subjonctif  est  nScesmire  lorsque  la  proposi- 
tion otL  il  doit  se  trouver  exprime  une  id^  qui  complete  et  achftve  Texprea- 
Bion  de  la  pens^  eontenue  dans  la  proposition  infinitive  ou  subjonctive  ft 
lAqueUe  elle  se  rattache.  The  sentence  that  he  gives  to  illustrate  this  state- 
ment is  an  example,  not  of  assimilation,  but  of  Indirect  Discourse. 


THE    USES    OF    THE    CONSTBUOTION,    LIMITATIONS. 


59 


lutely  necessary.  Practically  every  example  of  attraction  was 
balanced  by  one  or  several  non-attracted  clauses  which,  so  far  as 
closeness  of  attachment  is  concerned,  were  of  the  same  nature  as 
the  attracted  clauses  which  they  resembled. 

These  results  may  seem  somewhat  unsatisfactory  in  that  no 
single  short  statement  has  been  found  adequate  in  defining  the 
construction.  However,  a  short  definition  may  serve  the  peda- 
gogical purposes  of  those  who  correctly  understand  the  usages  of 
the  construction,  and  know  the  actual  facts  about  its  limitations 
as  I  have  tried  to  present  them  in  the  preceding.  A  rule  may 
be  formulated  somewhat  as  follows:  When  a  clause  depending 
upon  a  subjunctive  clause  forms  an  essential  part  of  the  thought 
of  the  governing  clause,  it  may  be  put  in  the  subjunctive.  In 
this  rule,  however,  the  word  "  essential "  must  be  interpreted  in 
the  light  of  all  of  the  preceding  discussion;  and  it  must  be  re- 
membered that  the  probability  of  the  assimilation  of  a  clause 
varies  with  its  success  or  non-success  in  complying  with  the  quali- 
fications herein  enumerated.  These  are  quite  tangible,  and,  as 
we  have  seen,  lend  themselves  readily  to  definite,  statistical  treat- 
ment. To  one  who  imderstands  these  the  study  may  bring  satis- 
factory results. 

Finally  I  would  protest  against  the  common  custom  of  treating 
this  construction  as  a  kind  of  Indirect  Discourse.  This  error  is 
probably  due  to  the  fact  that  the  two  constructions  behave  in  much 
the  same  way,  and  are  to  a  certain  extent  affected  by  the  same 
limitations.  It  is  also  true  that  one  often  finds  it  difficult,  not 
to  say  impossible,  to  decide  whether  a  verb  is  influenced  by  one 
or  the  other,  or  by  both.  We  have  seen,  however,  that  there  is 
very  little  in  common  between  them.  Their  origins  are  widely 
separated,  and  any  grammar  that  purports  to  be  historical  should 
treat  them  separately. 

Again,  the  construction  of  ai?simiUtioi'  should  be  carefully  dis- 
tinguished from  that  which  occiii^s  after  an  infinitive.  The  two 
have  in  many  particulais:  the  ^ame;  beg:innirfg8^  Ih^jy  have  prac- 
tically the  same  habits,  but  th6  latter  is  more  closely  allied  to  that 
of  Indirect  Discourse  than.  the. fgnner,  and  i^.of.rg^rer  occurrence. 


m 


'III 


i*ii 


m 


p  »  t 


•    t  I  •  •  < 


«    » 


•  «    t 


• .  * 


u 

p 
m 


i 


^1 


* 


Bj^f^-  00  WOT 


COLUMgi^ 


APR« 


